Allowed

V.N. Balaji v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Jun 2021WP/39861/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the Deputy Commissioner's order regarding disputed land boundaries. The court restored the original phodi and durasti of the petitioners' land and assigned Survey Number 76, recognizing a mutual settlement agreement between the parties that prejudged no adverse government interest.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 21.07.2014 quashed; durasti and phodi of petitioner's land measuring 30 Guntas restored with assignment of Sy.No.76.

V.N. Balaji Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 39861/2014 (KLR/RES)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

V.N.BALAJI S/O. V.S.NARAYANA IYENGAR AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

¶8

SMT. SHEELA RANGARAJAN W/O. V.N.BALAJI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶9

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.579, 1^ST MAIN, 2^ND STAGE 3^RD BLOCK, RMV EXTENSION BENGALURU-560094

¶10

... PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. A.S.PONNANNA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR MS. LEELA P. DENADIGA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND :

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP,. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PODIUM BLOCK

¶15

¶16

VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWER

¶17

BANGALORE-560 001

¶18

THE TAHASILDAR DEVANAHALLI TALUK DEVANAHALLI

¶19

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562110

¶20

THE SURVEY TECHNICAL ADVISOR AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR LAND RECORDS OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE-560 001

¶21

SRI. P.NARAYANSWAMY S/O. LATE:PATALLAPPA R/AT: INDRASANAHALLI VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562110 (REP. BY GPA HOLDER MUNIYAPPA)

¶22

... RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. A.R. SRINIVAS., AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. MOHAN BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R5;

¶24

SRI. MANJUNATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR GPA OF R5)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, IN G.R.P.NO.1/2011-12 DATED 21.07.2014, VIDE ANNEX-G AS BEING ILLEGAL AND VOID AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

This dispute is essentially between the petitioners and the fifth respondent, but there is also an ancillary dispute between the fifth respondent and his Power of Attorney who is no more. The dispute between the petitioners and the fifth respondent is as regards the durasti and phodi of a portion of land in Sy.No.7 of Indrasanahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk. According to the fifth respondent, 10 guntas of his land in Sy.No.65, (original Sy.No.42/P5-P2) of Indrasanahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, is included in the land in Sy.No.76, the petitioners' land. At the instance of the fifth respondent, the durasti and phodi of the petitioners' land in Sy.No.76 is set aside by the impugned order dated 21.07.2014 in Revision Petition No.1/2011-12.

¶30

The petitioners and fifth respondent have presently filed a joint memo, and the relevant part of the

¶31

¶32

joint memo insofar as the agreement between them in relation to the phodi of the petitioners' land in Sy.No.76 of Indrasanahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk reads as follows:

¶33

"In view of subsequent development the 5th respondent being satisfied that his property is situated in Block 10 of survey no.7 in Indrasanahalli, Kundanahalli Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk has nothing to do with the property Sy. No. 42/p5-p2 after phodi assigned with Sy.No.65 measuring 10 guntas (Old Sy.No.42) and Sy.No.76 measuring 30 guntas (old Survey No.7) are entirely different and distinct properties and there is no overlapping it is to duly record said fact and to set the dispute between the petitioner and Respondent no.5 at rest. The 5^th respondent has executed conformation deed on 15/4/17 in document no.DNH-1-471/2017-18 and stored in C.D.No.DNH D637 and also rectification deed dated 15/4/17 registered as Document no.474 stored in Book No.4 of Subregistrar office Devanahalli."

¶34

Sri. A.S.Ponnanna, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that with this agreement, the private dispute between the petitioners and the fifth respondent is settled and consequentially, the

¶35

¶36

impugned order dated 21.07.2014 in Revision Petition No.1/2011-12 should be quashed and the original phodi in TQDPR.CR.1/2010-11 should be restored affirming the assignment of new No.76 for an extent measuring *30 Guntas .

¶37

Neither the learned Additional Government Advocate nor Sri. Mohan Bhat, learned counsel who appears for the fifth respondent, controvert the submission or the request and in fact, the learned Additional Government Advocate, on instructions from the concerned, confirms that if the phodi and durasti in terms of the TQDPR.CR.1/2010-11 is restored, the Government's interest would not be prejudiced in any manner.

¶38

Sri. Manjunath Hegde, learned counsel who appears for Sri. T.Sheshagiri Rao, who appears on instructions by the Power of Attorney of the fifth

¶39

*Corrected vide Court order dated 14.12.2022.

¶40

¶41

respondent, submits that with the demise of the Power of Attorney, his vakalath comes to an end. While the petition could be disposed of in terms of the request made by the learned Senior counsel, this Court may observe that the restoration of durasti and phodi of the petitioners' land in Sy.No.76 for an extent of *30 Guntas in Indrasanahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District should not impede the rights that the legal representatives of the deceased Power of Attorney may have against the fifth respondent because the deceased has always asserted that his Power of Attorney was coupled with interest.

¶42

As there is unanimity on settlement of the dispute and recognition of the durasti and phodi of the petitioners' land measuring *30 Guntas with assignment of new survey number, Sy.No.76, there would be no cause for challenging the same and the challenge by the fifth respondent in Revision Petition No.1/2011-12 will have

¶43

*Corrected vide Court order dated 14.12.2022.

¶44

¶45

to fail. Therefore, the order dated 21.07.2014 requires to be quashed restoring the durasti and phodi of the petitioners' land in terms of TQDPR.CR.1/2010-11. As regards the inter se dispute between the fifth respondent and the Power of Attorney, it is observed that such dispute will have to be adjudicated in a properly instituted proceedings and any such dispute cannot extend to the restored durasti and phodi .

¶46

Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 21.07.2014 in Revision Petition No.1/2011-12 is quashed and the durasti and phodi of the petitioner's land measuring *30 Guntas with the assignment of Sy.No.76 of Indrasanahalli, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk vide order

¶47

No.TQDPR.CR.1/2010-11 is restored.

¶48

SD/JUDGE

¶49

¶50

*Corrected vide Court order dated 14.12.2022.

V.N. Balaji v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.N. Balaji 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

M Narayana Vs M/S Snn Arjun Builders LLP

Smt Subbamma Vs M/S Snn Arjun Builders LLP

Shivakumar Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Smt K Leelavathi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Krishnamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka

sri mudalagiriyappa Vs State of Karnataka