Partly allowed

Smt Manjula Reddy v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Jan 2022WA/1024/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In intra-court appeal on writ petition challenging revenue entry quashing orders, the High Court held that civil courts have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed title. The revenue authority cannot decide title. The Single Judge's order setting aside the Deputy Commissioner's decision was modified.

What did the court decide?

Single Judge's order was set aside; parties directed to establish rights in pending civil suit O.S.No.1232/2019.

Smt Manjula Reddy Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶8

W.A. NO.1024 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT MANJULA REDDY W/O. SRI. Y.C. REDDY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT NO.1010, 26TH MAIN 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 041.

¶11

SRI. J. PRATHAP REDDY S/O. SRI. J. THIMMAREDDY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/A NO.75, 14TH CROSS 11TH MAIN, HSR LAYOUT 6TH SECTOR, BENGALURU-560 101.

¶12

SRI. N. VIVEKANANDA REDDY S/O. LATE VENKATARAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/A 309, PINE B2, PRESTIGE GREEN WOODS C.V. RAMAN NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 093.

¶13

¶14

SRI Y.C. SANDEEP REDDY S/O. SRI. Y.C. RAMAREDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/A NO.1010, 26TH MAIN 4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 041. ... APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. VARADARAJAN M.S., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPT. OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶17

1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU-560 009.

¶18

1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, KANDHAYAN BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶19

1. THE TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK ANEKAL - 562 106.

¶20

1. SMT RATHNAMMA W/O. LATE NARAYANAREDDY AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS R/AT GHATTAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. B.C. CHETHAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5)

¶22

¶23

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.08.2021 PASSED IN W.P. NO.40957/2019 (KLR-RES).

¶24

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRILIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, B. VEERAPPA J. , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

The intra-court appeal is filed by the appellants against the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 02.08.2021 made in WP No.40957/2019, wherein the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition setting aside the order dated 28.04.2017 passed by the Assistant Commissioner in R.A. (A) No.134/2016-17 and the order dated 18.06.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, in RP No.513/2017.

¶27

It is the case of the appellants that they are respondents No.5 to 8 before the learned single judge. The

¶28

writ petition came to be filed by respondent No.5 - Rathnamma, challenging the order dated 28.04.2017 passed by the Assistant Commissioner in R.A. (A) No.134/2016-17 and the order dated 18.06.2019 passed

¶29

¶30

by the Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No.513/2017 vide Annexure 'E' and 'F' and according to respondent No.5, in the writ petition, in terms of compromise decree in the earlier suit, her husband Narayana Reddy @ Narayanappa was allotted Sy.No.31/16 measuring 5-00 acres while Narayanappa's brother Venkatappa was allotted Sy.No.31/14 measuring 5-00 acres and she succeeded her husband's property in Sy.No.31/16 New No.218 to an extent of 5-00 acres thereby her name was directly mutated in respect of the said survey number by the 4th respondent in his order. It is further contended before the learned single judge, the order passed by the 4th respondent in her favour erroneously in favour of 3rd respondent vide order Annexures 'E' and 'F'.

¶31

It is specific case of the appellants before the

¶32

learned single judge who were respondents No.5 to 8 that Sy.No.31/4 to an extent of 4-00 acres allotted in favour of Narayana Reddy @ Narayanappa - husband of original petitioner and Old Sy.No.31/14 measuring 5-00 acres

¶33

¶34

was allotted in favour of Narayanappa's brother Venkatappa. Both Narayanappa and Venkatappa sold their respective lands under a registered sale deed in the year 1951 and 1953 itself thereby the said two survey numbers are subject matter of civil suit i.e., Old Sy.No.31/14 New No.218 and Old Sy.No.31/16 New No.215. Sy.No.218 also converted to an extent of 4-00 acres out of 5-00 acres. Sy.No.31/16 New Sy.No.218 which later assigned SY.No.218/2. Sy.Nos.31/14 and 31/16 are sold by the original petitioners cannot be claimed in manner of right, title and interest over both survey numbers. Therefore sought to dismiss the writ petition.

¶35

During the pendancy of writ petition, a memo

¶36

came to be filed by the present appellants - respondents No.3 to 8 before the learned single judge, that they are not claiming any interest in old Sy.No.31/16, thereby the learned single judge passed the impugned order on 02.08.2021 and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Hence, the present writ appeal is filed.

¶37

¶38

We have heard the learned counsel for the

¶39

parties to the lis.

¶40

Sri. Uday Holla, learned senior counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned order passed by the learned single judge is erroneous, cannot be sustained. The learned single judge failed to appreciate that the petitioner in order to succeed in the original writ petition firstly had to prove that the old Sy.No.31/16 was allotted in favour of her husband Narayanappa. Secondly, she had to prove that her husband Narayanappa had been retained right, title in the property that was allotted to him. Therefore, the petitioner on the basis of succession, is entitled to claim in the revenue to the share of Narayanappa. He would further contend that the learned single judge committed an error in not even look into the several sale deeds produced by the appellants which clearly depicts that both Sy.Nos.31/14 and 31/16 sold by the petitioner's husband Narayanappa and his brother Venkatappa respectively. Therefore, there was no land

¶41

¶42

available for the petitioners to claim succession on the revenue entries.

¶43

Learned Senior counsel would further contend

¶44

that the learned single judge has not appreciated the revenue entries and survey documents which clearly depicts that old Sy.No.31/14 assigned new No.218 and Old Sy.No.31/16 assigned new No.215. The learned single judge has not appreciated the fact that the original petitioners have already filed O.S.No.1232/2019 for relief of declaration of title and consequential relief. Therefore, no interference is called for in the hands of the learned single Judge that too after lapse of 54 years. He would further contend that the appellants are claiming their right in Old Sy.No.31/14 New No.218 measuring 4-00 acres out of 5-00 acres, thereby the learned single judge erroneously set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ appeal.

¶45

¶46

Per contra, Sri. Chethan B.C., learned counsel

¶47

for respondent No.5 sought to justify the impugned order passed by the learned single judge and contended that the original petitioner already filed O.S.No.1232/2019 before the trial court for declaration of title and consequential relief in respect of Sy.No.31/16 New No.218 subsequently phoded as No.218/1, 218/2 and 218/3 more fully described in the schedule to the plaint, to an extent of 5-00 acres. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ appeal.

¶48

The learned Government Advocate submits that since the dispute between the parties in respect of Sy.No.31/16 and New Nos.218/1, 218/2 and 218/3 of Gattahalli Village are subject matter of the original suit No.1232/2019 questioning the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in exercising the power under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, is always subject to the result of the suit and fairly submits that the dispute between the parties are in respect of the land. Therefore he submits that the parties have to establish their respective rights, title and interest over the

¶49

¶50

suit schedule property. Therefore, he sought to dispose of the present writ appeal.

¶51

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is undisputed that the present respondents filed W.P. No.40957/2019 for writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 28.04.2017 made in RA No.134/2016-17 and the order dated 18.06.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner made in Revision Petition No.513/2017 as per annexures 'E' and 'F' and issue writ of mandamus to the 4th respondent Tahasildar to effect the khata in the name of the petitioner in respect of the property bearing dry land in Sy.No.218 measuring 5-00 acres situated at Gattahalli Village. Though the learned counsel for the present appellants filed memo to the effect that they have no right, title and interest in Sy.No.31/16 and specifically stated that they have purchased 4-00 acres of land in Old Sy.No.31/4 New No.218 of Gattahalli Village and having possession of the said land.

¶52

¶53

The learned single Judge proceeded to quash the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Admittedly the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is dated 18.06.2019 and the original suit is filed by the present respondent No.5 - the original writ petitioner on 05.12.2019 i.e., after the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in respect of Sy.No.31/16 New Sy.No.218 phoded as 218/1, 218/2, 218/3 measuring 5-00 acres of Gattahalli Village, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District.

¶54

It is also not in dispute that the present appellants also filed written statement disputing the title of the present respondent No.5 and the matter has to be adjudicated before the competent Civil Court. When there are disputed facts with regard to survey numbers, extents and two persons claiming their title in respect of Sy.Nos.31/16 and 31/14, according to the appellants, both the Survey numbers are sold by the husband of the 5th respondent and his brother and the appellants have purchased 4-00 acres of land in Sy.No.31/14 new No.218/2 of Gattahalli Village and taken possession, it is

¶55

¶56

the 5th respondent who already filed the original suit before the Competent civil Court to adjudicate her right. It is also not disputed that the Assistant Commissioner by the order dated 28.04.2017 filed by the 5th respondent in respect of Sy.No.31/14, measuring 5-00 acres of Gattahalli Village, under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,1964 and for the reasons, it is stated that Sy.No.31/16 has been assigned new Sy.No.218 measuring 5-00 acres sitauted at Gattahalli Village, very curiously in page 18 of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. It is stated as under;

¶57

"Para 18 - Further, even the order of the ADLR in assigning the new survey Nos.218/1, 2 and 3 to the old Sy.No.31/14 had not been questioned by the petitioner before appropriate forum and hence, the contention of the petitioner that the property in old Sy.No.31/16 has been assigned new survey No.218 is not acceptable"

¶58

Further even the order of the ADLR for assigning new Sy.No.218/1, 218/2 and 218/3 to old Sy.No.31/14 has not been questioned by the petitioner (5th respondent) before the appropriate forum. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that the property bearing Old

¶59

¶60

Sy.No.31/16 has been assigned New No.218 is not acceptable. On the date of the impugned order passed by the learned single judge, the petitioner Smt. Rathnamma already filed O.S.No.1232/2019 for declaration and consequential relief in respect of Sy.No.31/16, according to her new No.218 phoded as 218/1, 218/2 and 218/3 measuring 5-00 acres. It is for her to establish her title in respect of the property in question, thereby where there are disputed facts in respect of survey numbers and the sale deeds. The Deputy Commissioner has no right to decide title between the parties. It is competent civil court which is alone has jurisdiction to decide the title between

¶61

the parties. Therefore, the learned single Judge is not justified in setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner as the Deputy Commissioner has no right to decide title between the parties. Therefore, the learned single Judge ought to have held that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 18.06.2019 in Revision Petition No.513/2017 Annexure 'F' would be subject to the result of the suit pending between the parties and the petitioner has to delegate to adjudicate the suit in

¶62

¶63

O.S.No.1232/2019, thereby the learned single judge is not setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. To that extent, the order passed by the learned single judge has to be modified. In view of the above, we pass the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

(i) Writ appeal filed by the appellants is

¶66

allowed in part.

¶67

(ii) The impugned order passed by the learned single judge dated 02.08.2021 made in WP No.40957/2019 in so far as the order dated 18.06.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner made in RP No.513/2017 is hereby set aside.

¶68

(iii) Both the parties are directed to establish their respective right, claim in the suit already pending between the parties and the learned Sr. Civil Judge is directed to dispose of the suit strictly on merits and in accordance with law.

¶69

¶70

(iv) Any observations made by the learned single judge while passing the impugned order and observations made in the present writ appeal, shall not come in the way of disposing of the suit, pending between the parties.

¶71

Sd/JUDGE

¶72

Sd/JUDGE

¶73

snc

Smt Manjula Reddy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Manjula Reddy v. 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

H R Ravichandra Vs Sri. Krishna

Jayarama M Vs Sri. Ramesh Desai

M/S Ranganath Enterprises Vs Smt Dr N Nagalambika Devi

M/S Rai Bahadur Seth Shreeram Vs Sri R N Singh

Dattappa Nigappa Vs Sri Siddeshwar N

Hidayathyulla .K.a. Vs Smt. G. Satyavathi