Quashed

Sri Thimmaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2021WP/1329/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court quashed impugned orders regarding a land dispute where records were unavailable. It directed the jurisdictional Tahasildar to reinstate proceedings uninfluenced by prior orders and decide on mutation of revenue entries. The petition was disposed of without delay to ensure justice.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was quashed; proceedings reinstated; Tahasildar directed to ensure mutation of revenue entries and hold next hearing on 09.08.2021.

Sri Thimmaiah Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1329 /2013 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI THIMMAIAH, SON OF LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA, SINCE DEAT BY HIS LR'S

¶8

SMT.MUNIYAMMA, WIFE OF LATE THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT VASANTHAPURA VILLAGE, UTHRAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, PIN CODE - 560083.

¶9

SMT.VIJAYA NIRMALA, DAUGHTER OF LATE THIMMAIAH, WIFE OF MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT VASANTHAPURA VILLAGE, UTHRAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, PIN CODE-560083.

¶10

SMT.GIRIJA, DAUGHTER OF LATE THIMMAIAH, WIFE OF VENKATESH GIRI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT VASANTHAPURA VILLAGE, UTHRAHALLI HOBLI,

¶11

¶12

BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, PIN CODE-560083.

¶13

SMT.MEENAKSHI, DAUGHTER OF LATE THIMMAIAH, WIFE OF BYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT VASANTHAPURA VILLAGE, UTHRAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, PIN CODE-560083. ... PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI P.M.SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND :

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU.

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE RURAL DSITRICT, PODIUM BLOCK, V V TOWER, DR AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

¶18

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION, PODIUM BLOCK, V V TOWER, DR AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

¶19

THE TAHSILDAR, HOSKOTE TALUK, HOSKOTE - 562 114.

¶20

¶21

THE R R T SHERISTHEDAR, TALUK KACHERI, HOSKOTE TALUK, HOSKOTE - 562 114.

¶22

SRI RAJENDRA RAO, S/O MUNISWAMY RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, HARALURU VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI,

¶23

HOSKOTE TALUK - 562 114. ... RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI A.R.SRINIVAS, AGA FOR R1 TO R5, SRI G.PAPI REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.09.2003 PASSED BY THE R5 IN CASE VIDE ANNX-D ALSO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02.09.2005 PASSED BY R3 VIDE ANNX-E AND ALSO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.10.2012 PASSED BY THE R2 IN RP NO.118/05-06 VIDE ANNX-F.

¶26

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

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

The learned counsels for the petitioners and the sixth respondent, the learned Additional Government Advocate and Smt. Geetha, the Tahasildar, Hoskote, Bengaluru, are heard for final disposal of the petition. The petitioners, who assert ownership of the land measuring 2 acres 3 guntas in Sy.No.83 of

¶29

¶30

Haraluru Village, Jadigenahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Hoskote, have impugned the following orders;

¶31

i. The order dated 20.09.2003, passed by the R.R.T. Sheristhedar, Taluk Kacheri, Hoskote Taluk, [the fifth respondent] in case No.RRT (Dispute) 1-A/200304 [Annexure-D];

¶32

ii. The order dated 02.09.2005 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur Sub-Division, [the third respondent] in case No.R.A.No.37/2003-04 [Annexure-E]; and

¶33

iii. The order dated 08.10.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru [the second respondent] in Revision Petition No.118/2005-06 [Annexure-F].

¶34

This Court on 30.03.2021 recorded the learned Additional Government Advocate’s submissions that records of the aforementioned proceedings were not available but an effort would be made to trace the records. On 05.04.2021, this Court recorded the learned Additional Government Advocate’s further submissions that the records in Revision Petition No.118/200506 on the file of the second respondent are traced but not the

¶35

¶36

records of the proceeding in No.RRT (Dispute) 1-A/2003-04.

¶37

Smt. Geetha, the jurisdictional Tahasildar, submits that the records of the proceeding in No.RRT (Dispute) 1-A/2003-04 are not traced in her office and she has scrutinized the relevant register. The proceeding in case No.RRT (Dispute) 1-A/2003-04 is numbered out of seriatim and the tabulation of the records of the proceedings is completed without including the records of the proceedings in No.RRT (Dispute) 1-A/2003-04.

¶38

However, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the sixth respondent are categorical in their submissions that notices were issued to the parties of the proceedings No.RRT (Dispute) 1-A/2003-04 by the R.R.T Tahasildhar and their parties have appeared. In fact, Sri. G.Papi Reddy, learned counsel for the sixth respondent submits that the Tahasildar conducted the spot inspection to verify the nature of the land and then the impugned order dated 20.09.2003 is pronounced resulting in further proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner in R.A.No.37/2003-04 and Revision Petition No.118/2005-06 before the Deputy Commissioner. Thus, the

¶39

¶40

general consensus amongst the learned counsels and the Tahasildar is that the records may have been misplaced and it is not a case where the order dated 20.09.2003 is pronounced without a file.

¶41

The rival claim between the original petitioner and the sixth respondent are based on certain sale deeds viz ., the sale deeds dated 27.05.1988 and 15.12.1993, and the corresponding revenue entries in their favour for the land measuring 2 acres 3 guntas in Sy.No.83 of Haraluru Village, Jadigenahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Hoskote. The petitioners’ contention is that on the demise of his father, Sri Thimmaiah [the original petitioner] the revenue entries have to be mutated in their name.

¶42

As record in case No.RRT (Dispute) 1-A/2003-04 is not available, this Court is of the considered view that in the interest of justice, the jurisdictional Tahasildar must reinstate the proceedings in No.RRT (Dispute) 1-A/2003-04 with due opportunity to both the petitioners and the sixth respondent and

¶43

¶44

reconsider the dispute uninfluenced by the observations/orders in the proceedings either before the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, the following;

¶45

ORDER

¶46

[a] The writ petition is disposed of quashing the order dated 20.09.2003 in Case No.RRT (Dispute) 1-A/2003-04 [Annexure – D], the order dated 02.09.2005 in case No.R.A.No.37/2003-04 [Annexure –E] and order dated 08.10.2012 in Revision Petition No.118/2005-06 [Annexure – F], and the proceedings in No.RRT (Dispute) 1-A/2003-04 is reinstated to the board of the jurisdictional Tahasildhar for reconsideration;

¶47

[b] The jurisdictional Tahasildar shall take all such measures as would be permissible under Chapater-11 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, for a decision on the petitioners' request for the mutation of revenue entries for the land measuring 2 acres 3 guntas in Sy.No.83 of Haraluru

¶48

¶49

Village, Jadigenahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Hoskote in

¶50

accordance with law.

¶51

[c] The petitioners and the sixth respondent, who shall

¶52

appear before the jurisdictional Tahasildar without further notice on 09.08.2021, shall be at liberty to canvass all grounds permissible in law.

¶53

SD/JUDGE

¶54

BSR

Sri Thimmaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Thimmaiah 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

Smt. Tulasa Vs State of Karnataka

The Principal Secretary to Govt Vs M Abbayya @ Abbanna

G T Girish Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Rangaswamy Vs Divisional Forest Officer

Sri C Sreenivasamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Lakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka