Partly allowed

Thyagaraja Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Sept 2021WP/3831/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an endorsement rejecting his request for a khata certificate due to a dispute over an open space site. The court held that since the claim was against the Panchayat and civil suits on the property were dismissed, the matter required adjudication by higher authority.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Taluk Executive Officer to consider the case of both parties within six months and issue appropriate orders; directed the First Respondent to communicate this order to the Executive Offic

Thyagaraja Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.3831 OF 2020 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

THYAGARAJA REDDY S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT OLD KHANESHUMARI NO.58 NEW KHANESHUMARI NO.59 DOMMASANDRA VILLAGE, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU – 562 106.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI HARISH H.V., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THE DEPT. OF PANCHAYATH RAJ DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DOMMASANDRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH DOMMASANDRA ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT BENGALURU – 562 106.

¶13

... RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI NITHYANANDA K.R., HCGP FOR R1; SRI R.S.PRSANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶15

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 28.11.2019 PASSED BY THE R-2 / THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, DOMMASANDRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VIDE ANENXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE ISSUANCE OF KHATHA CERTIFICATE TO THE PETITIONERS PROPERTY BEARING OLD KANESHUMARI NO.59 NEW KANESHUMARI NO.58, SITUATED AT DOMMASANDRA VILLAGE, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an endorsement dated 28.11.2019, passed by the second respondent - Panchayat Development Officer declining to effect khata of the property in question, in the name of the petitioner and keeping the application pending, on the ground that no boundaries or dimensions were indicated in the application seeking khata.

¶20

2. Heard Sri Harish H.V., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Nithyananda K.R., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent, Sri

¶21

¶22

R.S.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and perused the material on record.

¶23

3. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the petition as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:

¶24

It transpires that the grandfather of the petitioner by name Muniswamappa @ Matada Muniswamy, acquired the property bearing old Kaneshumari No.59, New Kaneshumari No.58, situated at Dommasandra village, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru City, through a sale deed dated 22.05.1926. His uncle by name one Nanjundappa, acquired an open space bearing old Kaneshumari No.59 in terms of sale deed dated 15.01.1948.

¶25

4. It is the case of the petitioner that, during the year 1950, there was a division in the family and the aforementioned properties fell to the share of the father of the petitioner one Sri Ramaiah. Later, it appears that a further division was effected in the family and the said properties fell to the share of the petitioner and his children. Since then, the petitioner claims to be living in the said property by constructing a house and had

¶26

¶27

left an open space towards the east of his house. He has also constructed a toilet in the open space and claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the property.

¶28

5. A neighbour to the property of the petitioner one Muniyappa, interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the petitioner, which drove the petitioner to file a civil suit in O.S.No.19/1993, seeking relief of injunction against Muniyappa and the Muniyappa had filed a suit claiming that he is the owner of site No.59, in O.S.No.404/1995. The trial Court dismissed the suit filed by Muniyappa and decreed the suit of the petitioner in terms of its judgment and decree dated 12.04.2004.

¶29

6. In the suit, during the trial, a Court Commissioner was appointed to inspect the property and submit a report. The report was submitted to the effect that the petitioner was in possession of the aforesaid property. Muniyappa who had lost the suit in O.S.No.404/1995, filed an appeal in R.A.No.57/2006, which came to be dismissed on 19.09.2015. After the dismissal

¶30

¶31

of the appeal, the petitioner submitted a representation on 24.09.2015, to effect khata in his name before the Gram Panchayat.

¶32

7. It transpires that the Secretary of the Dommasandra Gram Panchayat filed a suit in O.S.No.407/2006, seeking declaration that the Panchayat is the owner and in possession of Kaneshumari No.60, measuring East to West 60 feet and North to South 24 feet of Dommasandra village, against the petitioner. The said suit came to be dismissed on 17.01.2009, holding that

¶33

the property belonged to the petitioner. After all these proceedings, the second respondent – the Panchayat Development Officer (for short ‘the PDO’), issued a notice directing the petitioner to furnish documents in justification of his illegal possession on the land bearing Kaneshumari No.60. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.09.2018, with all necessary documents in justification and support of his claim. The second respondent – the PDO, without considering the objections submitted by the petitioner in justification of his

¶34

¶35

claim, has illegally demolished the property of the petitioner. The petitioner has appended certain photographs in support of his claim of such illegal demolition.

¶36

8. After the illegal demolition of the property, a legal notice is caused upon the second respondent - the PDO, with regard to the said illegal demolition and a claim for restoration. This is not replied to by the second respondent. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid action approached this Court in writ petition No.46322/2018, seeking a direction by issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus for considering his representation dated 24.09.2015. During the pendency of the said writ petition, an endorsement was issued on 28.11.2019, rejecting the representations. This Court by an order dated 02.12.2019, dismissed the aforesaid writ petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the endorsement dated 28.11.2019. Challenging the said endorsement of rejection of the representation dated 24.09.2015, the present writ petition is preferred.

¶37

¶38

9. The claim of the petitioner is that, the open space which lies next to the property of the aforesaid Muniyappa belongs to him and he has all the requisite documents in justification of his claim. The claim of the second respondent that the property belongs to the Panchayat as it is a open space and being used for the activities of the residents of the Panchayat for all purpose, cannot be claimed as a private property of the petitioner.

¶39

10. It is also germane to notice that the suit filed by the Panchayat against the petitioner in O.S.No.407/2006, is dismissed and has become final. Therefore, the claim and counter claim on the property is required to be resolved. Submission of any representation or consideration of the claim of the petitioner at the hands of the second respondent – the PDO cannot be the remedy that would be available in the peculiar facts of this case to the petitioner, since the claim for the open space is by the second respondent – the PDO of the Gram Panchayat. Therefore, in my considered view the dispute

¶40

¶41

has to be resolved by the higher Authority than that of the second respondent, which would be the Taluk Executive Officer.

¶42

11. Therefore, the Taluk Executive Officer shall consider the case of both the petitioner and the second respondent, without being influenced by the endorsement issued by the second respondent or any other communication against the petitioner by the Panchayat and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, on a decision being taken after examining all the documents placed by the respective parties.

¶43

12. No action detrimental to the interest of the petitioner in respect of his khata shall be issued/passed by the second respondent as the issue is with regard to the vacant site and not the residential house, in which the petitioner resides. Therefore, the possession of the residential house shall not be disturbed.

¶44

13. The Taluk Executive Officer shall comply with the direction mentioned hereinabove, within six months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶45

¶46

14. Since, the Taluk Executive Officer is not a party to these proceedings, the Government - first respondent on receipt of the certified copy of this Order, shall forthwith issue such communication enclosing a copy of this Order to the Taluk Executive Officer of the jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders in compliance with the aforesaid directions.

¶47

15. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

nvj CT:MJ

Thyagaraja Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thyagaraja Reddy 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Sainandana Developers Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Mohammed Meraj Ul Haq Taqui Vs the Commissioner

Sri Gururaju Vs State of Karnataka

Venugopal H R Vs the Commissioner

Dr Muhammed Majeed Vs the Commissioner

C T Jayakumar Vs the Deputy Commissioner