R. SRINIVAS Vs. SANJEEVAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellant under Sec. 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dtd. 11/4/2023 passed in W.P.No.10152/2018 (KLR- RR/SUR) by the learned Single Judge.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the appellant is the owner of land bearing Sy.No.83/2 measuring 1 acre situated at Mylappanahalli Village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The respondent No.3-Tahasildar, as per the direction of the respondent No.2 entered the name of the respondent No.1 in the revenue records in terms of the compromise decree dtd. 25/2/2015 in O.S.No.103/2015. The respondent No.3 altered the records as per the order of the respondent No.2 dtd. 18/11/2015, wherein the appellant noticed that the extent of land in his name as per the revenue records in Sy.No.83/2 was altered from 1 acre to 20 guntas. The appellant filed a suit in O.S.No.1507/2015 seeking permanent injunction against the respondent No.1 and another. The appellant also challenged the order of the respondent No.2 dtd. 18/11/2015 before the respondent No.4 which was dismissed with a finding that the same would be subject to the outcome of the suit in O.S.No.1507/2015. The appellant assailed the order passed by the respondent Nos.2 and 4 before the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.10152/2018. The learned Single Judge, vide the impugned order dismissed the petition and held that status quo should be maintained with regard to the revenue entries of the land in question subject to the outcome of O.S.No.1507/2015. Being aggrieved, this appeal is filed.

(3.) Sri.Mahendra S.S, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has not considered the material on record in its proper perspective. It is submitted that the compromise decree in O.S.No.103/2015 was obtained by fraudulent means and the appellant was also not a party to the same due to which the said decree could not have been the sole basis to order for change in the revenue entries. It is further submitted that the respondent No.2 directed the respondent No.3 to change the revenue entries in terms of the compromise decree and the same was carried out without giving the appellant an opportunity to be heard. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of ISMAILBEE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS,W.P.No.203889/2024 dt. 20/12/2024. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.