2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 44610

: 1 :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

WRIT PETITION NO.108550/2014 (KLR-RR/SUR)

BETWEEN:

Shri Chandrappa Apayyappa Agasimani,

Age 38 years,

R/o.: Hirebagewadi,

Tq. & Dist.: Belgaum.

... Petitioner

(By Shri Girish S.Hiremath, Advocate)

AND:

1.

Shekar Gurusiddappa Agasimani,

Age major, Occ:

2.

Shivappa Shivabasappa Agasimani,

Age major, Occ:

3.

Gurappa Shivabasappa Agasimani,

Since deceased by his L.Rs.,

Smt. Mahadevi Gurappa Agasimani,

Age major, Occ: Household work,

4.

Smt. Vidya Kom. Vitappa Hosani,

Age major, Occ: Household work,

5.

Rvindra Gurappa Agasimani,

Age major,

: 2 :

6.

Gajendra Shivabasappa Agasimani,

Age major, Occ:

7.

Shri Ningappa Shivabasappa Agasimani,

Age major, Occ: Household work,

All are R/o.: Hirebagewadi,

Tq. & Dist.: Belgaum.

8.

The Assistant Commissioner, Belgaum.

9.

The Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum.

... Respondents

(Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are served;

Shri Prashant S.Kadadevar, Advocate for R3 to R6;

Shri Shivaprabhu S.Hiremath, AGA for R8 & R9;

Notice to R7 is held sufficient)

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the

Constitution of India, praying to quash the orders dated

05.10.2012, passed by respondent No.8 in RTS AP/177/2010

vide Annexure-B and respondent No.9 dated 31.07.2014 in

No.RB/RTA-37/2012-13 vide Annexure-C.

This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing B-Group,

this day, the Court made the following:

The petitioner cannot pursue the revenue authorities to get his name entered in the revenue records based on certain disputed documents such as relinquishment deed/consent deed etc.,

Headnote:

REVENUE RECORDS - MUTATION - CONSENT OF CO-OWNERS - [The petitioner cannot pursue the revenue authorities to get his name entered in the revenue records based on certain disputed documents such as relinquishment deed/consent deed etc.,]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the order passed by the respondent No.9 in RB/RTA-37/2012-13, by which the order passed by respondent No.8 dated 05.10.2012 in RTS AP/177/2010 was confirmed. The petitioner claimed that the land bearing R.S.No.122/3, 124/1+2, 460/3, 460/4A+13A+16A, 460/7, 481/4 and 481/5 situate at Hire Bagewadi belonged to Shivappa Agasimani who had four sons namely (i) Gurusiddappa (ii) Shivabasappa (iii) Appayappa (iv) Gurappa. It is claimed that the four sons had orally partitioned the properties and were in possession of their respective share. It is claimed that after the death of Appayappa, the names of his legal heirs were not entered in the revenue records. Thus, the petitioner obtained the consent of the other co-owners and filed an application before the Tahasildar, who forwarded it to the village accountant. The village accountant assigned number 127/130 to the application and published a notice in Form-21. The respondents objected to the same and therefore was treated as a dispute and referred to the Deputy Tahasildar for adjudication. The Deputy Tahasildar after hearing the parties passed an order dated 28.09.2010 certifying 127/130 of Hire Bagewadi and directed the names of the legal heirs of Appayappa to be entered in the revenue records. Being aggrieved by the order, the respondents 1 and 2 challenged it before the respondent No.8, who noticed that a suit in O.S.No.356/2002 was filed for partition and separate possession which was decreed declaring that the parties were entitled to 1/4th share in the suit properties. He also noticed that the petitioner himself had filed FDP No.4/2009 while the respondent No.3 had filed another final decree and obtained his 1/4th share and got the possession of his share in Execution Petition No.17/2009. Though the petitioner claimed that he filed a miscellaneous petition to set aside the decree in O.S.No.356/2002, the respondent No.8 held that there cannot be parallel proceedings and hence set aside the mutation that was accepted by the Deputy Tahasildar. The petitioner challenged the order passed by respondent No.8 before the respondent No.9 in a revision petition. The respondent No.9 held that the documents on which the petitioner relied upon to get his name entered did not bear any date. He noticed that those who had allegedly executed the documents had expired on 20.09.2004 and 25.09.2007. He also found that the suit in O.S.No.356/2002 was decreed in respect of which FDP No.4/2009 was filed. Thus, he held that the respondent No.8 was justified in reversing the mutation that was accepted by the Deputy Tahasidar and thus rejected the revision petition. He held that the parties shall be bound by the outcome of FDP No.4/2009.

Finding of the Court:

The petitioner cannot pursue the revenue authorities to get his name entered in the revenue records based on certain disputed documents such as relinquishment deed/consent deed etc., In that view of the matter, the revenue authorities were justified in directing the petitioner to work out his remedy in FDP No.4/2009 filed by him.

Issues: Whether the petitioner can pursue the revenue authorities to get his name entered in the revenue records based on certain disputed documents such as relinquishment deed/consent deed etc.,

Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner cannot pursue the revenue authorities to get his name entered in the revenue records based on certain disputed documents such as relinquishment deed/consent deed etc., In that view of the matter, the revenue authorities were justified in directing the petitioner to work out his remedy in FDP No.4/2009 filed by him.

Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed. It is open for the petitioner to seek restoration of the final decree proceedings in FDP No.4/2009 and work out his remedy in the final decree proceedings.