Partly allowed

Sri. K. v. Shantharam v the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Aug 2022WP/16946/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench disposed of a writ petition challenging a mutation entry in land revenue records. The court partially allowed the petition, quashing the erroneous entry and ordering restoration of prior records upon admission that the land was already sold.

What did the court decide?

Mutation entry M.R.No.120/2005-06 was quashed; revenue entries restored prior to mutation. Disposition of remaining matters reserved due to admission of disposal of land.

Sri. K. v. Shantharam Vs the State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 16946 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.16946 OF 2017 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

SRI. K. V. SHANTHARAM S/O LATE SRI K R VENKATAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O AT NO.161, 22^ND CROSS, 6^TH MAIN, SECTOR 7 HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU- 560102

¶10

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI. K. V. SUBRAMANYA S/O LATE SRI K R VENKATAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O AT NO.161, 22^ND CROSS, 6^TH MAIN, SECTOR 7 HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU -560102

¶12

SRI. K. V. SHIVAPRASAD, S/O LATE SRI K R VENKATAKRISHNAIAH , AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O AT NO.161, 22^ND CROSS, 6^TH MAIN, SECTOR 7 HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU -560102

¶13

SRI. K. V. VENKATESH S/O LATE SRI K V SRINVASAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O AT NO.161, 22^ND CROSS, 6^TH MAIN, SECTOR 7 HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU -560102

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. SAMPATH BAPAT, ADVOCATE)

¶16

¶17

WP No. 16946 of 2017

¶18

AND :

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU- 560001

¶20

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT

¶21

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARAM SUB DIVISION RAMANAGARAM

¶22

THE TAHSILDAR KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT

¶23

SMT KEMPAMMA DEAD BY HER LRS W/O LATE SHRI LINGAIAH R/O AT NO.3598, HONNADEVI NILAYA A V R ROAD, J C EXTENSION KANAKAPURA TOWN & TALUK, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT

¶24

5(a) SRI. K.N. SHIVALINGAIAH S/O LATE SHRI. LINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT AKKUR VILLAGE, VIRUPAKSHIPURA HOBLI CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT

¶25

5(b) SRI. CHIKKASWAMY S/O LATE SHRI. LINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.3598, HONNADEVI NILAYA AVR ROAD, J.C. EXTENSION KANAKAPURA TOWN RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶26

¶27

WP No. 16946 of 2017

¶28

5(c) SRI. L. BYRAPPA S/O LATE LINGAIAH @ KUNTAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT VEERABHADRESHWARA KRUPA 16^TH CROSS, A.E.C.S. LAYOUT NEAR R.M.V. HOSPITAL SANJAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560094

¶29

RESPONDENT NO.5(a) TO 5(c) INSERTED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 18.08.2022.

¶30

SRI K V RAJASHEKARAIAH S/O LATE SRI VEERABHADRA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O AT KOLAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, KODIHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPRUA TALUK RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI. SESHU.V, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. SHREEPADA RAJA.G, ADVOCATE FOR R5(A) TO R5(C);

¶33

SRI. N. MAHENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH MUTATION ENTRY ISSUED BY R-4 AT ANNEX-H AND CONSEQUENT ENTRIES IN THE RTC IN RESPECT OF SCHEDULE PROPERTY AS VOID AND NON-EST AND ETC.

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

WP No. 16946 of 2017

¶38

ORDER

¶39

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶40

The petitioners herein were aggrieved of the mutation entry made in M.R.No.120/2005-06 made by respondent No.4-Tahsildar, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District, consequent to which the name of respondent No.5(a) has been entered in the land revenue records.

¶41

The learned Counsels for the petitioners and respondents No.5(a) to 5(c) have filed a Joint Memo dated 18.08.2022 stating that both the parties admit the following factual aspects:-

¶42

2 acres and 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.677/2 of Kanakapura village, Kasaba Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District was granted in favour of Sri.Lingaiah @ Kuntaiah, on 27.07.1960. Sri. Lingaiah @ Kuntaiah executed a sale deed dated 15.04.1970 in favour of Sri.K.R.Venkatakrishnaiah and on the basis of the said sale deed the name of Sri.K.R.Venkatakrishnaiah was entered

¶43

¶44

WP No. 16946 of 2017

¶45

in the land revenue records vide M.R.No.65/1970-71. The petitioners claim under Sri.K.P.Venkatakrishnaiah.

¶46

Sri.Lingaiah @ Kuntaiah died on 23.01.1979. Although during the life time of Sri.Lingaiah @ Kuntaiah, he had disposed of the land in question under a registered sale deed 15.04.1970, nevertheless, the Saguvali Chit was issued in the name of Sri.Lingaiah @ Kuntaiah on 08.06.1994. Respondents No.5 and 5(a) sought to get their names entered in the land revenue records on the strength of the Saguvali Chit issued in favour of Lingaiah. This was resisted by the petitioner. When the respondents were unsuccessful, they approached this Court in W.P.No.25230/1997, challenging the order dated 01.08.1997 passed by the respondent-Assistant Commissioner, Ramangara Sub-Division. The writ petition was partly allowed while confirming the other part of the directions issued by the Assistant Commissioner regarding forfeiture of the land to the State Government was quashed. Nevertheless, inspite of such an order being passed at the hands of this Court, the respondent-

¶47

¶48

WP No. 16946 of 2017 Tahsildar has passed the impugned order in M.R.N.120/2005-06 permitting entry of the names of the respondents No.5 and 5(a) in the land revenue records.

¶49

The petitioners and respondents No.5(a) to 5(c)

¶50

have filed the Joint Memo admitting that Sri.Lingaiah @ Kuntaiah had in fact disposed of the land in question under a registered sale deed dated 15.04.1970 and therefore no right remained with the respondents No.5(a) to 5(c) and consequently, their names may be removed from the land revenue records.

¶51

At this juncture, a submission is made on behalf of respondent No.6, who is said to be an ‘agreement holder’ from respondent No.5-Smt.Kempamma that respondent No.6 has already filed a suit in O.S.No.128/2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Kanakapura, seeking a decree of Specific Performance of the Contract. Therefore, an objection is sought to be raised on the Joint Memo filed at the hands of the petitioners and other respondents. This objection

¶52

¶53

WP No. 16946 of 2017

¶54

cannot be sustained, since this Court is concerned only with the entry in the land revenue records in the writ petition. When admittedly, respondent No.6 is only an ‘agreement holder’, he will have no say in the matter of the entry of the land revenue records. On the other hand, if respondent No.6 succeeds in the suit filed by him and consequently he becomes entitled to have a sale deed executed in his favour, the land revenue records will be mutated in his name in accordance with law.

¶55

Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed

¶56

of in view of the joint memo filed by the petitioners and respondents No.5(a) to 5(c).

¶57

Consequently, the mutation entry in M.R.No.120/2005-06 passed by respondent No.4Tahsildar, Kanakapura Taluk, in respect of 2 acres and 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.677/2 of Kanakapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶58

¶59

WP No. 16946 of 2017

¶60

The revenue entries shall be restored as it was

¶61

prior to the impugned mutation order vide

¶62

M.R.No.120/2005-06 passed by the respondent-Tahsildar.

¶63

Ordered accordingly.

¶64

Sd/JUDGE

¶65

Sri. K. v. Shantharam v the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. K. v. Shantharam 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

Muneppa @Moogappa Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sri G P Basavarajappa Vs the Principal Secretary

Ramachandra Vs the Tahsildar and Secretary

Mr M a Colasco Vs State of Karnataka

Manjaiah Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Mr. N. M. Nagaraja Vs the State of Karnataka