Karnataka HC Keeps 2-Acre Land In Late Hampamma’s Name Pending Partition Suit Over Kottrappa’s Estate

The petitioner claimed the land in Survey No. 152, measuring 2 acres, under a registered Will executed by Hampamma in 2016. After Hampamma’s death, the Tahsildar mutated the petitioner’s name; the Assistant Commissioner directed that the entries continue subject to the outcome of O.S. No. 349/2022.

In that suit, respondents 8 and 9 claimed to be Kottrappa’s children and sought partition of his properties. On a revision under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the Deputy Commissioner set aside the mutation orders and directed cancellation of the petitioner’s entries. The petitioner challenged that decision under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The petitioner argued that Survey No. 152 was not included in the suit and that respondents 8 and 9 had not initiated the revenue appeal; respondents’ counsel stated that the land had been omitted from the suit schedule inadvertently and that an application would be filed to include it.

The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, and the revenue revision was brought under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

The Court proceeded on the basis that revenue authorities could not determine the truth or validity of a disputed Will where the parties’ competing claims were for adjudication by a civil court; the revenue entries were therefore to remain subject to the outcome of the pending suit.

No judicial precedent was identified in the order as the basis for the decision.

The Court noted that the competing claims concerned properties originally belonging to Kottrappa, that the petitioner’s claim rested on Hampamma’s Will, and that respondents 8 and 9’s claim to inheritance was contested in O.S. No. 349/2022.

Given the dispute over the Will and the parties’ rights, the Court accepted the Deputy Commissioner’s view that the revenue authorities were not the forum to determine the Will’s validity. It found no error in the impugned order and left the substantive claims for decision in the civil suit.

It left all parties’ contentions open for determination in that suit.