M.S. RAMAKRISHNAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellant under Sec. 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dtd. 23/3/2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.23839/2016 (KLR-RR/SUR).

(2.) The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the appellant claims to be the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.369 measuring 2 acres 33 guntas situated at Kempapura Agrahara, Kasaba Hobli, Benagluru North Taluk, having purchased the same in the year 1968. The respondent No.4 made a representation on 5/11/2014 before the respondent No.2 seeking transfer of the Katha entry in respect of Sy.No.369 to an extent of 2 acres 28 guntas on the basis of Will dtd. 29/12/1979. The respondent No.2, without giving notice to the appellant, proceeded to pass an order dtd. 17/12/2014 directing the transfer of khatha in favour of the respondent No.4. The said order passed by respondent No.2 was assailed before the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.23839/2016. The learned Single Judge on considering the provision of law proceeded to dismiss the petition on the ground that an alternative remedy was available by way of appeal under Sec. 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, before the Assistant Commissioner. Being aggrieved, this appeal is filed.

(3.) Sri. R.Subramanya., learned counsel appearing for Sri.Raju.S., learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has erroneously dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the change in the revenue entry must be challenged by way of an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. It is submitted that in the earlier proceedings the respondent No.2 vide order dtd. 16/2/1983 rejected the claim of the father of respondent No.4, which was affirmed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.4, claiming to be the daughter of the appellant's vendor, filed a suit for declaration and possession based on the Will, which was dismissed, the Regular First appeal was also dismissed. It is submitted that the proceedings before the revenue authorities with regard to the change of khatha has attained finality by the order of the Deputy Commissioner dtd. 21/7/1998, who held that the revenue entries are subject to outcome of the suit filed by the respondent No.4. It is further submitted that the civil proceedings initiated by respondent No.4 has also attained finality and the right, title and possession over the suit schedule property of the appellant is proved in those proceedings. It is contended that knowing fully well all these facts, the respondent No.4 again moved an application before the respondent No.2 seeking to mutate the name of the respondent No.4 on the basis of the very same Will. Hence, the appellant, who is a title holder of the property, filed the writ petition. It is further contended that the order of the respondent No.2 is wholly without jurisdiction and amounts to abuse of process of law. These aspects have not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge while relegating the appellant to an appeal remedy. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.