Disposed

Sri Krishnamurthy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Jun 2021WP/11018/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed writ petitions challenging mutation entries and revenue orders. Relying on a Full Bench judgment, the court held that revenue authorities cannot adjudicate title disputes. Consequently, the mutation entries in favour of Smt. Meera Ravindra were continued pending the outcome of related civil litigation.

What did the court decide?

Mutation entries continued in the name of Smt. Meera Ravindra subject to the outcome of the pending civil proceeding regarding title.

Sri Krishnamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 08^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 6294/2017 (KLR RR/SUR) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 11018/2017 (KLR /RES)

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 6294/2017

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SRI CHOODAMANI@ SHIVAN SON OF CHOODAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT NIDAGALLU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(By Sri. N JAVAHAR BABU, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVAN, BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶14

THE THASILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,

¶15

¶16

KANDAYA BHAVAN, BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶17

SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY SON OF THIMMASHETTY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.32/2, 3^RD "A" CROSS, CHOLUR PALYA, MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 023.

¶18

SRI. V. SHIVAKUMAR SON OF H. VEERA NARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUVEMPU NAGARA 1^ST STAGE, JALAHALLI EAST, BANGALORE - 560 014.

¶19

SRI. RATHNAKAR SON OF NANDIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.68/2, 12^TH MAIN ROAD, 9^TH CROSS ROAD, RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK, SRINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 026.

¶20

SRI. ADVESH SON OF CHANDRANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.135/3, 7^TH CROSS, RUDRAPPA GARDEN, K.B. NAGAR, BANGALORE.

¶21

SRI. GURURAJ.B SON OF BASAVIAHH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.129, 5^TH MAIN ROAD,

¶22

¶23

2^ND CROSS,VITTAL NAGAR NANJUNDA AGRAHARA, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE.

¶24

SRI. M. KUMAR SON OF MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.10/2, 8^TH CROSS, RUDRAPPA GARDEN, K.B. NAGAR, BANGALORE.

¶25

SRI. YAMAIAH

¶26

SON OF LATE BETTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.82, 5^TH MAIN, 7^TH CROSS, VENKATARAMANAGAR, BANGALORE.

¶27

SRI. CHENNAPPA SON OF LATE. NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R ESIDING AT NO .22 83, 22^ND CROSS, K.R. ROAD, BSK II STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 070.

¶28

SMT. UMARAJI PATIL D/O K.F. PATIL, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEAR DEEPAK BAR, OLD MADRAS ROAD, KRISHNARAJAPURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE.

¶29

SMT. MEERA RAV EENDRA WIFE OF M.S. RAVEENDRA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.89, 6^TH CROSS, ASHOK NAGAR, BSK 1^ST STAGE,

BANGALORE - 560 050.

... RESPONDENTS

(By SRI. A.R. SRINIVAS, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. G.S. VENKAL SUBBA RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R13; PETITION AS AGAINST R4-R7 & R9-12 ARE STAND DISMISSED VIDE ORDER DATED 02.08.2019; NOTICE SERVED ON R8)

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED IN RA(S) NO.380/2014-15 DATED 03.08.2016 ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2 (ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER) AT ANNEXURE-B AND RP NO. 182/2016-17 DATED 02.01.2017 ON THE FILE OF RESPONDENT NO.1 (DEPUTY COMMISSIONER) AT ANNEXURE-D AND CONSEQUENTLY TO RESTORE THE MUTATION ENTRIES I.E. M.R. NO. 24/87-88 IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN ALL THE REVENUE RECORDS INDICATING THE OWNERSHIP AND OCCUPANCY WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E.

¶35

WRIT PETITION NO. 11018/2017

¶36

BETWEEN :

¶37

SRI KRISHNAMURTHY S/O THIMMASETTY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.32/2, 3^RD A CROSS, CHOLUR PALYA, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 023.

¶38

SRI V. SHIVAKUMAR S/O H.VEERANARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT KUVEMPUNAGAR, 1^ST STAGE, JALAHALLI EAST, BENGALURU - 560 014.

¶39

¶40

SRI R RATHNAKAR S/O NANDIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT 68/12, 12^TH MAIN ROAD, 9^TH CROSS ROAD, RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK, SRINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 026.

¶41

SRI ADAVEESH S/O CHANDRANNA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.135/3, 7^TH CROSS, RUDRAPPA GARDEN, K.N.NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 018.

¶42

SRI B. GURURAJ S/O BASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.129, 5^TH MAIN ROAD, 2^ND CROSS, VITTALANGAR, NANJUNDA AGARAHARA, CHAMARAJAPET, BENGALURU - 560 018.

¶43

SRI M. KUMAR S/O MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.10.2, 8^TH CROSS, RUDRAPPA GARDEN, K.N.NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 018.

¶44

SRI YAMAIAH S/O LATE BETTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.82, 5^TH MAIN, 7^TH CROSS, VENKATARAMANAGAR, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU - 560 018.

¶45

... PETITIONERS

¶46

(By Sri. V. F. KUMBAR, ADVOCATE)

¶47

¶48

AND :

¶49

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVNUE M.S.OFFICE BUILDING DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶50

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶51

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶52

THE TAHASILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶53

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR KENGERI HOBLI BENGLAURU SOUTH TALUK - 560 060.

¶54

THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT KENGERI CIRCLE & HOBLI BENGLAURU SOUTH TALUK - 560 060.

¶55

SMT. MEERA RAVINDRA W/O M.S.RAVINDRA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT 89, 6^TH CROSS ASHOK NAGAR B.S.K.1^ST STAGE BENGALURU - 560 050.

¶56

... RESPONDENTS (By SRI. A.R. SRINIVAS, AGA FOR R1 TO R6;

¶57

¶58

SRI. G.S. VENKAT SUBBA RAO., ADVOCATE FO R7)

¶59

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN REVN.PET NO.182/2016-17 DATED 02.01.2017 VIDE AT ANNEXURE-N.

¶60

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶61

O R D E R

¶62

The learned counsels for the parties, including the learned Additional Government Advocate, are heard. The orders dated 03.8.2016 in No.R.A(S) No. 380/201415) on the file of the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub-Division and the order dated 02.01.2017 in Revision Petition No.182/2016-17 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru are perused. The learned counsels for the parties in tandem relate the circumstances leading to the impugned orders.

¶63

¶64

It is submitted that the dispute in the

¶65

proceedings relate to the land measuring 10 acres in Sy.No.133 of B.M. Kaval, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk – the subject property. According to one set of petitioners, the subject property is granted to Narayana Gurukula Ashram represented by Mr. John Spiers and according to the other set of petitioners, Sri John Spiers purchased the said property under the sale deed dated 25.10.1962 from the State of Karnataka. The petitioners who assert that Sri John Spiers purchased the subject property under the sale deed dated 25.10.1962 contend that he has executed his last Will and Testament dated 19.03.1979 bequeathing the subject property in favour of

¶66

C. Choodamani @ Shivan (the petitioner in W.P. No.6294/2017). The others who contend that the subject property is granted to Narayana Gurukula Ashram assert that Sri John Spiers could not have executed the aforesaid Will dated 19.03.1979 dealing with the same as his absolute property.

¶67

¶68

It is undisputed that Sri Choodamani @ Shivan, the legatee under the Will and Testament dated 19.03.1979, has instituted probate proceedings in P&SC No.112/1980 which is allowed granting probate. Thereafter, the revenue entry for the subject property is made in the name of Sri Choodamani @ Shivan in M.R.No.24/1988-89. Sri Choodamani @ Shivan has transferred the subject property under the sale deed dated 09.08.1982 in favour of Sri C.Channappa and the khata is made in his name vide MR 31/1988-89. Sri C.Channappa has transferred the subject land in favour of Smt. Umaraji Patil under two sale deeds which are dated 23.6.1991 and 24.4.1991, and the corresponding revenue entries in faovur of this purchaser are in M.R. No.17/1990-91 and MR 18/1990-91. The purchaser, Smt. Umaraji Patil has transferred the subject property in its entirety under the sale deed dated 4.11.1992 in favour of Smt. Meera Ravindra and the corresponding

¶69

¶70

revenue entries in favour of this purchaser are in M.R. 33/1992-93 and M.R.34/1992-93.

¶71

The petitioners in W.P.No.11018/2017 have impugned the revenue entries in MR 31/1988-89 (which is in favour of Sri C.Channappa), M.R.17/1990-91 (which is in favour of Smt. Umaraji Patil), M.R.33/1992-93 and M.R.34/1992-93 (which are in favour of Smt. Meera Ravindra) under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, before the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, who by the impugned order dated 3.8.2016 has set aside these mutation entries. In the revision petition filed by Smt. Meera Ravindra in R.P. No.182/2016-17, the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru has set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order observing that the revenue entries in the name of Narayana Gurukula Ashrama cannot be justified and consequentially the mutation entries in favour of Smt. Meera Ravindra would stand restored.

¶72

¶73

The learned counsel for the parties argue both for and against the impugned order contending that the Assistant Commissioner has decided the questions of title when dead persons are arrayed as respondents and without all the concerned being made parties to the proceedings. The Deputy Commissioner while considering the Revision Petition has overlooked these and other circumstances. On behalf of Smt. Meera Ravindra (one of the common respondents in these petitions), it is also asserted that the subject property is converted from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 in the year 2010, and Smt. Meera Ravindra’s right, title and interest in the subject property stand vindicated with the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.690/1994 which is commenced by certain persons asserting that they represent Narayana Gurukula Ashram.

¶74

¶75

However, the learned counsel for the parties do not dispute that with the declaration of law by a Full Bench of this Court in Smt. Jayamma vs. State of Karnataka, W.P. No.6294/2017 [reported in ILR 2020 Kar 1449 ], it is no longer res integra that the revenue authorities cannot embark upon any question of title to immovable property under Chapter-XI of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the enquiry thereunder could only be confined to examination of the due process in entering the revenue entries.

¶76

Further, the disputes inter se Sri. Choodamani @ Shivan [and persons claiming under him] and the members of Narayana Gurukul Ashram are all questions of title which would require answers to questions such as whether the transfer of the subject property by the State is in favour of Sri John Spiers in his personal capacity or as a founder of Narayan Gurukula Ashram and whether the probate granted in the probate proceedings in P&SC

¶77

¶78

112/1980 as also the dismissal of the suit by certain legal representatives of Narayana Gurukula Ashram in O.S.No.690/1994 would have any impact on the different transfers. It must be emphasized that it is contended that this suit in O.S.No.690/1994 challenging the transfers mentioned above and for declaration that the subject property belongs to Narayan Gurukula Ashram is dismissed and this dismissal has attained finality.

¶79

In these circumstances, the petition is disposed of observing that the revenue entries for the subject property shall be continued in the name of the purchaser, Smt. Meera Ravindra subject to the outcome of a civil proceeding i.e., which is either pending consideration or which could be instituted by the concerned in a manner known to law.

¶80

SD/JUDGE

¶81

Sri Krishnamurthy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Krishnamurthy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M Narayana Vs M/S Snn Arjun Builders LLP

Smt Subbamma Vs M/S Snn Arjun Builders LLP

Shivakumar Vs the Assistant Commissioner

V.N. Balaji Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt K Leelavathi Vs the State of Karnataka

sri mudalagiriyappa Vs State of Karnataka