Dismissed

Shri Raghupathi v. Smt Kanakamma

Karnataka HC11 Jan 2016WP/57716/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that writ petitions seeking to set aside a Land Tribunal order are premature and premature inasmuch as a suit for declaration of title is pending. The court disposed of the writ petitions without prejudice to the petitioners' remedy in the civil court.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed of without prejudice to the remedy available to the petitioners before the civil court for challenging the Land Tribunal order.

Shri Raghupathi Vs Smt Kanakamma — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos.57716-57720 OF 2015 (LR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Shri Raghupathi, Son of Sri. Chinna Abbaiah Reddy, Aged about 50 years,

¶9

Shri Narayana Reddy, Son of Sri. Chinna Abbaiah Reddy, Aged about 48 years,

¶10

Shri Babu Reddy, Son of Late Yellappa Reddy, Aged about 46 years,

¶11

Shri Ramashekara Reddy, Son of Late Yellappa Reddy, Aged about 42 years,

¶12

Shri Chandrappa Reddy, Son of Late Yellappa Reddy, Aged about 38 years,

¶13

All the petitioners residing at No.120/1, 4^th Cross, Annasandra Palya,

¶14

¶15

Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore 560 017.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(By Shri S. Sreevatsa, Senior Advocate for Smt. Prathima .V, Advocate)

¶18

AND:

¶19

Smt. Kanakamma, Wife of Late Rama Reddy, Aged about 60years,

¶20

Shri Rajashekara Reddy, Son of Late Rama Reddy, Aged about 48years,

¶21

Shri Prakash,

¶22

Son of Late Rama Reddy, Aged about 45years,

¶23

Shri Rajesh, Son of Late Rama Reddy, Aged about 32 years,

¶24

All are residing at Annasandra Palya, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore 560 017.

¶25

Smt. R. Raja Sulochana, Daughter of Late M. Rama Reddy, Aged about 44 years, Residing at No.69, Pembrooke Layout, Panathur Main Road,

¶26

¶27

Bangalore 560 103.

¶28

Sri. N. Srinivasulu Reddy, Son of Laksha Reddy, Aged about 45 years, Residing at Flat No.303, Amrutha Residency, Doddanakkundi, Maraathahalli Post, Bangalore 560 037.

¶29

Sri. Surendra Gopavaram, Son of Late Haranatha Reddy, Aged about 40 years, Residing at Flat No.A-403, Dhanushree Apartments, No.360, 1^st Main Road, Jakkasandra, 1^st Block, Koramangala, Bangalore 560 034.

¶30

Sri. Pavan Kumar Kalathuru, Son of K. Srinivasulu Reddy, Aged about 39 years, Residing at Flat No.T-01, 3^rd Floor, ‘Srirama Pride’, Annasandra Palya, Vibhuthipura Dhakale, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore 560 017.

¶31

The Land Tribunal, Bangalore South Taluk, By its Secretary, Bangalore 560 001.

¶32

¶33

The Revenue Secretary, The State of Karnataka, Vikasa Soudha, Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore 560 001.

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(By Smt. B.P.Radha, Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 9 and 10)

¶36

¶37

These Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order passed by the ninth respondent dated 31.12.1996 vide Annexure-L and to call for records in LRF No.4770/1977-78 before the Land Tribunal, Bangalore South Taluk, and set aside the order dated 31.12.1996 granting 04 guntas in Sy.No.106/1A4, Vibhuthipura Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk to R-1 to R-4 and direct the Respondents 1 to 8 to restore the possession of the schedule property.

¶38

These Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the court made the following:

¶39

O R D E R

¶40

The present petitions are filed claiming that 4 guntas of

¶41

land in Sy.No.106/1A4 of Vibuthipura Village, Varthur Hobli,

¶42

Bangalore East Taluk, originally belonged to the grandfather of petitioners 1 and 2 and great grandfather of petitioners 3 to 5. It

¶43

¶44

transpires that the land was acquired by Venkataswamy @ Venkataswamy Reddy, as evidenced from the entry in the Mysore Revision Settlement Register dated 24.06.1965, who was the ancestor of petitioners 1 and 2.

¶45

After acquiring the same, the mutation entries also

¶46

reflected his name in the revenue records. The said Venkataswamy had died in the year 1971 and after him, his sons had succeeded to the property. It is only in May 2015 that the petitioners had occasion to visit the land in question and found that there were third parties carrying on certain activity. It was then discovered that the respondents had filed an application in Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal naming one Gullamma as the owner of the property in the year 1978 and though Gullamma was a stranger to the property, Gullamma having died during the pendency of the proceedings and the applicant Rama Reddy, the husband of Respondent No.1 also having died during the pendency of the proceedings, the Tribunal has proceeded to grant occupancy rights in favour of

¶47

¶48

the legal representatives of late Rama Reddy in the absence of any basis and therefore, the petitioners have been constrained to file a suit seeking a declaration that they are the true owners of the property and that notwithstanding the grant of occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal, the respondents could not acquire any right to the property, which is in addition to the civil suit so filed that the present writ petition is filed seeking further relief to set aside the order of the Land Tribunal and also to restrain the respondents from creating any third party rights.

¶49

Since the title of the petitioners is yet to be established before the Trial Court, the further relief of challenging the Land Tribunal order could arise only if the petitioners are able to establish their title to the property.

¶50

Secondly, insofar as the respondents seeking to create

¶51

any third party interest, it would not preclude the civil court from considering any such relief sought for, as the Land Tribunal’s order has attained finality, unless it is set aside in appropriate proceedings. In any event, the present writ

¶52

¶53

petitions are premature in the admitted circumstance that a suit for declaration of title is pending before the Civil Court. If and when the petitioners succeed therein, it would then be open for them to question the Land Tribunal’s order. For otherwise, the relief restraining the respondents from creating third party interest could be considered by the civil court itself. Therefore, the present petition is disposed of without prejudice to such remedy available to the petitioners before the civil court.

¶54

The learned Government Pleader is permitted to file

¶55

memo of appearance for respondents 9 and 10.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

JUDGE

¶58

Shri Raghupathi v. Smt Kanakamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Raghupathi v. Smt Kanakamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Manjunath Vs the State of Karnataka

G.V. Subba Rao Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Nirman Shelters(B) Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. G. Yerri Swamy Vs the Commissioner

Karnataka Bank Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income -Tax

Mr C Nandeeshappa Vs the State of Karnataka