Satappa and anr. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.

Satappa and anr. vs The Deputy Commissioner and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Karnataka Decided Sep 30, 2004

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/385849

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/385849
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: V. Gopala Gowda, J.
Decided On: Sep 30, 2004
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 28140 of 2004
Subject: Family
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- LABOUR & SERVICES Disciplinary proceedings: [H.N. Nagamohan Das, J] Disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner - Allegation, that the petitioner had secured the appointment by producing a bogus transfer certificate - Enquiry proceedings - Submission of report by the enquiry officer - Disciplinary authority n...

Key legal issue: Family
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Satappa and anr.

Advocate Anil V. Kulkarni, Adv.

Respondent

The Deputy Commissioner and ors.

Advocate Kempanna, High Court Government Pleader for Respondents-1 to 3, ;S.S. Patil and ;Patil, Advs. for Respondents-4 and 5

Legal References

Reported In: 2005(3)KarLJ557

Excerpt

- labour & services disciplinary proceedings: [h.n. nagamohan das, j] disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner - allegation, that the petitioner had secured the appointment by producing a bogus transfer certificate - enquiry proceedings - submission of report by the enquiry officer - disciplinary authority neither accepted the enquiry report nor disagreed with the same -but issued the second articles of charges -legality of held, the disciplinary authority had no jurisdiction to initiate a re-enquiry or a fresh enquiry in respect of the very same charges. it is not in dispute that the charges levelled in the first articles of charges dated 20-12-2002 and the second articles of charges dated 15-7-2004 are same. further it is not in dispute that in respect of first articles of charges, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 27-9-2002 stating that the charges levelled against the petitioner has not been established. further it is not in dispute that the disciplinary authority has neither accepted the report of the enquiry officer dated 27-9-2002 nor disagreed with the same. surprisingly, the disciplinary authority in the second articles of charges dated 15-7-2002 and initiates a fresh inquiry proceedings. this act on the part of the disciplinary authority is impermissible under regulations and the same is without jurisdiction. consequently, the findings of the second enquiry officer are vitiated. .....deputy commissioner, bangalore district, bangalore and ors., 2002(6) kar. l.j. 391 (fb) : ilr 2002 kar. 2750 (fb) is pressed into service.3. a perusal of the impugned order at annexure-a reveals that some of the properties are the self-acquired properties of deceased annappa narasgond and the remaining properties fell to his share in the partition as per m.e. no. 4802. after the death of annappa narasgond, m.e. no. 9405 was entered in the name of his wife smt. susheelavva as class i heir. thus, she being the absolute owner of the properties, had every right to execute the will in favour of respondents 4 and 5. the petitioners cannot claim that they are the joint family properties and they have got share in them. since there was partition among the brothers and m.e. no. 4802 was made in favour of husband of deceased susheelavva, the claim of the petitioners is wholly untenable. in fact, petitioners have not at all mentioned about m.e. no. 4802.4. the order at annexure-a is rightly confirmed in appeal and the revisional authority has rightly observed that if the petitioners still want to pursue their claim, they can approach the competent civil court. hence, the decision relied upon the petitioners will not support their case. petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.5. accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

1. The petitioners, Annappa Narasgond and Venkappa Narasgond are brothers. Smt. Susheelavva is the wife of deceased Annappa Narasgond and sister of respondents 4 and 5. After the death of Annappa Narasgond, the names of petitioners and Smt. Susheelavva were mutated vide M.E. No. 9405. According to the petitioners, Smt. Susheelavva under a Will dated 14-9-2001 bequeathed the properties mentioned in the writ petition in favour of respondents 4 and 5. After the death of Smt. Susheelavva, respondents 4 and 5 sought mutation of their names and the same was sanctioned vide M.E. No. 10865 under Annexure-A. The appeal preferred against the same was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner under Annexure-B, dated 5-2-2004. Revision petition filed thereon was also rejected under Annexure-C, dated 29-4-2004 observing to approach the competent Civil Court. Petitioners are seeking to quash Annexures-A, B and C and a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to enter their names in the revenue records.

2. According to the petitioners, the properties are joint family properties; that they have got share in the properties and that the Will in favour of respondents 4 and 5 does not confer any right upon them. The decision in C.N. Nagendra Singh v. The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore and Ors., 2002(6) Kar. L.J. 391 (FB) : ILR 2002 Kar. 2750 (FB) is pressed into service.

3. A perusal of the impugned order at Annexure-A reveals that some of the properties are the self-acquired properties of deceased Annappa Narasgond and the remaining properties fell to his share in the partition as per M.E. No. 4802. After the death of Annappa Narasgond, M.E. No. 9405 was entered in the name of his wife Smt. Susheelavva as Class I heir. Thus, she being the absolute owner of the properties, had every right to execute the Will in favour of respondents 4 and 5. The petitioners cannot claim that they are the joint family properties and they have got share in them. Since there was partition among the brothers and M.E. No. 4802 was made in favour of husband of deceased Susheelavva, the claim of the petitioners is wholly untenable. In fact, petitioners have not at all mentioned about M.E. No. 4802.

4. The order at Annexure-A is rightly confirmed in appeal and the revisional authority has rightly observed that if the petitioners still want to pursue their claim, they can approach the competent Civil Court. Hence, the decision relied upon the petitioners will not support their case. Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2004 Same Parties Satappa and anr. vs The Deputy Commissioner and ors. Same Subject Family Same Judge V. Gopala Gowda, J.

Family