Allowed

Sri a Ramakrishnam Raju v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Jun 2021WP/11062/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition to quash an order dated 26.05.2015 regarding land in Kurubarahalli village, recognizing the prior judgment that quashed the same order in other connected writ petitions and directed the deletion of B kharab entries.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 26.05.2015 is quashed and the authorities are directed to delete the B kharab entry.

Sri a Ramakrishnam Raju Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 11062/2021 (KLR/RES)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI A. RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU S/O LATE SUBASHCHANDRA BOSE RAJU AGED 56 YEARS, R/AT RAMACHANDRA TOWERS, FLAT NO.103, PLOT NO.271/273C, ADDAGUTTA SOCIETY WESTERN HILLS KUKAPALLY HOUSING BOARD HYDERABAD - 500 072.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(By Sri. SHIVARAMA BHAT O., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001

¶12

REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT

¶14

MYSURU - 570 001.

¶15

¶16

THE TAHSILDAR MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU - 570 001.

¶17

... RESPONDENTS

¶18

(By SRI.SRINIVASA GOWDA.R., AGA)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26.05.2015 IN CASE NO. 230(1-10)/2009-10, 1109 & 1152/11-12 TO NEW NO. 540/2014-15 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER LAND IN CONCERNED PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDNET VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RESTORE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE REVENUE RECORDS IN RESPECT SCHEDULE LAND BEARING SY. NO. 4 (OLD NO.104) OF KURUBARAHALLI, NAZARABAD MOHALLA, MYSORE CITY HOLDING M.C.C. KHATHA NO. 60 & 60A ADMEASURING AN AREA OF MEASURING 6,53,400 SQFT (15 ACRES) OF WHICH SOUTH WEST SIDE OF THE VACANT LAND ADMEASURING AN AREA OF 50094 SQFT (1.06 ACRES).

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioner has impugned the order dated 26.05.2015 in RRT.540/2014-15 (Old No.RRT.ETC.230(1-10)/2009 & 10, 1109 and

¶23

1152/2011-12) as the owner of the land measuring 1.06 acres in Sy.No.4 (Old No.104) of Kurubarahalli village,

¶24

¶25

Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk ( 'the subject property'). The petitioner apart from impugning the order dated 26.05.2015 insofar as the subject property has also sought for direction to the revenue authorities to delete the ‘B’ kharab entry even in respect of the subject property.

¶26

The petitioner asserts that he acquired title to the subject property under the registered Gift Deed dated 25.04.2013 executed by Sri. Srikanta Datta Narasimha Raja Wadiyar. Sri. Srikanta Datta

¶27

Narasimha Raja Wadiyar has acquired this land in a partition and a subsequent settlement within his family members. The petitioner contends that his rights to the subject property are impeded by the impugned order dated 26.05.2015 and the consequential ‘B’ kharab entry. This impugned order dated 26.05.2015 (Annexure-A) is challenged before this Court in a series of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.22658-22662/2015 and

¶28

¶29

connected matters which are disposed of by order dated 19.06.2020. This Court has quashed the impugned order dated 26.05.2015 with different directions inter alia that the ‘B’ kharab entry in the revenue records in Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk be deleted as a consequence of the impugned order dated 26.05.2015 being quashed.

¶30

These assertions remain uncontroverted, and with the impugned order dated 26.05.2015 being quashed by this Court with the direction to the authorities to delete the ‘B’ kharab entry, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner would also be entitled for similar relief. Therefore, the impugned order dated 26.05.2015 in RRT.540/2014-15 (Old No.RRT.ETC.230(1-10)/2009 & 10, 1109 and 1152/2011-12) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru District is also quashed insofar as the subject

¶31

¶32

property and the authorities are directed to delete the

¶33

‘B’ kharab entry even insofar as the subject property.

¶34

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶35

SD/JUDGE

¶36

Sri a Ramakrishnam Raju v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri a Ramakrishnam Raju 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ugrappa Vs the State of Karnataka

C D Mukundappa Vs State of Karnataka

T R Subbalakshmi Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Javanamma Vs Divisional Forest Officer

M/S. Dhanalakshmi Quarry Vs Thasildar

Narayanaswamy Vs the Deputy Commissioner