BEFORE THE HONBLE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAICHUR.

REVISION PETITION NO: / 2024

Channabassappa //Vs// Smt. Ayyamma 85 Others

INDEX

Parti :ulars Pages

Revision Petition U/Sec.

136 (3) ofKLRACT 03 Page

List of Documents 01 Page

Application U/Sec. 05 of 03 Page

Limitation ACT along
with affidavit

Vakalatnama 01 Page

Process Memo 01 Page

Defendant Copies

Place : Raichur

Date: \ -1^-2024 COUNSEL FOR REVISION PETITIONER

ASHOK KUMAR B KAREKAL ADVOCATE

Enroll No: KAR/ 1859/2003

Mobile No: 9972683400
w

BEFORE THE HONBLE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAICHUR.

REVISION PETITION/APPEAL NO: /2024

APPELLANT Channabassappa S/o: Sharnappa

Aged about 52 Years, Occ; Agriculturist
R/o: Matamari Vill^e, Tq 8b Dist: Raichur.

//Vs//

RESPONDENTS : 1) Ayyamma D/o: Late. laxmana

Aged about 74Years, Occ: Agriculturist
2) Rajashekar S/o: Siddalingappa
Aged about 53 Years, Occ: Agri. 8& Govt. Employee,
Both are residing at H-No: 22, Near Post Office,
Kudlur Village, Tq 86 Dist: Raichur.
3) The Asst. Commissioner, Raichur.
4) Nada Tahasildar Gillesugur, Tq 86 Dist: Raichur
5) The Village Accountant, Gillesugur,
Tq 8b Dist: Raichur
6) The Revenue Inspector, Gillesugur,
Tq 8b Dist: Raichur

REVISION APPEAL U/SEC. 136 f31 OF KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT

In the above case, the Revision Petitioner most humbly submits as imder,

That the Revision Petitioner preferred this Revision Petition by challenging

order of the Asst. Commissioner Raichur in SAM/KAM/Appeal No: 63/2024 Dtd.
14-08-2024 filed by the Appellant No: 1 8g 2 before the Respondent No: 3 i.e.,
Asst. Commissioner Raichur. Hence the Revision appellant preferred this
impugned order before this HonTDle Court within the period of limitation by
getting the knowledge and applied the certified copy of said order received on 18-
09-2024, hence the said revision petition is within the period of limitation by
enclosing copy of the order kindly perusal of this Hon'ble Court on the following
grounds. Hence filed the separate application of limitation for condoning the
delay of 17 days.
V
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

That the Respondent No: 1filed the suit for permanent Injunction against
the appellant and one Siddappa i.e., brother of appellant in OS No: 142/2013.
In meanwhile the respondent no: 1 and Revision Petitioner are compromised in
the suit land i.e., in Sy No: 279/* measuring 17 acres 21 guntas out of02 acres
land western portion in favor of Revision Petitioner on 30-09-2021. As per
compromise decree of the HonTDle Court the revision petitioner is the absolute
and exclusive owner. But respondent no: 1by suppressing the facts andwithout
the knowledge of revision petitioner sold the total land bearing Sy No: 279/*
measuring 17 acres 21 guntas in favor of respondent no: 2 i.e., Rajashekar S/o:
Siddalingappa in vide Registered Sale Deed Doc. No: 10573/2023-24 Dtd: 10-
11-2023 illegally and respondent no: 2was applied the mutation before the Nada
Tahasildar Raichur but the Tahasildar was not mutated the said land and passed
the order as maintained Status Quo on 03-01-2023 in RRT NO: 433/2023-24.
As such the respondent No: 1 Ss 2 are preferred the appeal before the HonTDle
Asst. Commissioner Raichur i.e.. Respondent No: 3. But the Respondent No: 3
after the hearing of the appeal petition passed an erroneous order as mutated
the said land in favor of respondent no: 2 without verifying the Court
order/compromise decree passed by the HonTDle Addl. Civil Judge 8s JMFC 111
Raichur Dtd: 30-09-2021. Hence the Revision Petitioner approached before this
HonTDle Authority/Court by challenging the erroneous order passed by
Respondent No: 3 along with filing an separate application of Sec. 05 of
Limitation Act with in the period.

CtROUNDS FOR REVISION PETiTlON

1) That the Asst. Commissioner Raichiir had illegally and erroneously passed
the order by allowing the appeal filed by the respondent no: 1 Ss 2 and hence
the said order is fit to be set aside by allowing the present revision petition as
per the Court order passed by HonTDle Addl. Civil Judge &JMFC 111 Raichur
in O S No: 142/2013 Dtd: 20-03-2021.

2) That the respondent no: 1 85 2 are colluded with revenue officials. Therefore,
the order passed by the respondent No: 3 is fit to be set aside by allowing the
present revision petition.

3) That the respondent no: 3 has not applied legal procedure and once decide
the matter by the civil court, revenue court does not interfere and without
discussing about the order passed this erroneous order is fit to be set aside.

z.
\

4) In this regard the revision petitioner had submitted all relevant records before
the Honhle Asst. Commissioner Raichur i.e., Respondent No: 3 but
respondent No: 3have not been considered of the revision petitioner objection
with all relevant records, passed erroneous order against the principals of
natural justice.

5) The Respondent No: 1 by suppressing of the facts sold the said land by way
of Registered Sale Deed Doc. No: 10573/2023-24 in favor of the Respondent
No: 2illegal and same to be confirmed by the Respondent No: 3 illegal without
verifying the objections filed by the Revision Petitioner, hence it isfit to be set
aside.

6) That the order of the Asst. Commissioner Raichur is to be set aside because
no proper enquiry made and not applied judicious mind. And hence the
present revision petition is fit to be allowed by setting aside the order of the
Asst. Commissioner and Tahasildar Raichur. And this revision petition filed
within the period of limitation.

TRUE FACTS OF THE CASE

The Respondent No: 1 have filed the suit in OS No: 142/2013 for seeking
decree of Permanent Injunction against the Appellant and his brother by name
Siddappa in respect of suit land bearing Sy No: 634 measuring 11 acres 8 gutas,
land bearing Sy NO; 493/2 measuring 01 Acre 28 Guntas, land bearing Sy NO:
279 measuring 17 Acres 21 Guntas and Land bearing Sy No: 181/1 measuring
02 Acres 32 Guntas, all lands are situated at Matmari Village, Tq 85 Dist:
Raichur. The Appellant no: 1and respondent no: 1and his brother are admitted
that, as Siddappa Residing at Matmari Village was having three sons by name
Veerbhadrappa, Laxmanagouda and Shamappa. The said Veerbhadrapa and his
wife Sharbamma both are died and issueless. Hence the appellant is legally
wedded wife of said Lachmanagouda. There are no issues to respondent no: 1
and Laxamanagouda. The said Laxmanagouda died leaving behind his wife
Ayyamma i.e.. Respondent No: 1 herein, the said Sharnappa died leaving behind
his two sons by name Siddappa and Channabasappa (resp. no: 1). After the
death ofsaid Siddappa the lands are separated without partitionproperly. Hence
the landsare filed by the respondent no; 1against the appellant and his brother.

After service of notice the appellant and his brother are appeared and made
conciliation and come to conclusion and filed the compromise petition along with
schedule of land.
Therefore, as perthe compromise petition filed by the appellant and respondent
no: 1 and his brothers in the 0 S No: 142/2013, before the HonTile Addl. Civil
Judge 85 JMFC III Court Raichur was signed the decree on 18-01-2022 and same
to fmalized with acceptance by the both parties i.e., respondent no: 1 and
appellant 85 his brother.

Therefore, the Hon'ble Court/Authority mutate as per decree of land

bearing Sy No: 279 totally measuring 17 Acres 21 Guntas out of 02 acre
land western portion situated at Matamari village in favor of appellant and
set aside the order without proper verifying the Court Order passed by the
Hon'ble Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC III Court Raichur was signed the decree
on 18-01-2022, interest of justice and equity.

Any other arguments would be urged at the time of final argument with due
permission.

HENCE IT IS PRAYED THAT,

The Hon'ble Court may be please to allow the revision petition filed by the
Revision Petitioner by setting aside the order passed by the Asst. Commissioner
Raichur in RRT Appeal No: SAM/KAM/Appeal No; 53/2024 Dtd: 14-08-2024
filed by the Respondent No: 1 85 2 before the Respondent No: 3 i.e., Asst.
Commissioner Raichur by mutating in Sy No: 279 totally measuring 17 Acres
21 Guntas out of 02 acre land western portion situated at Matamari village
in favor of the revision petitioner in the revenue records for the ends ofjustice
and equity.

Place: Raichur Revision Petitioner

Date: \ -^9-2024
Through ^
innab^sappaQ.-^
(Channab
Counsel for Revision Petitioner
/
BEFORE THE HONBLE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAICHUR.

REVISION PETITION NO: / 2024

Channabassappa //Vs// Smt. Ayyamma 85 Others

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

1} Certified Copy of Assistant Commissioner Raichur Order in RRT Appeal No:

63/2024 Dtd: 14-08-2024 issued on 18-09-2024.
2) Copy of Compromise Decree in Original Suit in OSNO: 142/2013 passed by
Hon-ble Addl. Civil Judge &JMFC III Raichur Dtd; 18-01-2022.£\^ ,
3) Copy of Tahasildar Order in RRT No: 433/2023-24 Dtd: 03-01-2023.
4) Certified Copy ofObjection filed by the Revision Petitioner before the Assistant
Commissioner Raichur in RRT No: 63/2024.
5) Copy ofSale Deed Doc. No; 10573/2023-24 Dtd: 10-11-2023

Place: Raichur

Date; ) -^&-2024 Counsel for Revision Petitioner