Partly allowed

Sri N Nagaraju v. the Regional Joint Director

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2022WP/3402/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner challenged an order negating his revision regarding land classification. The High Court found errors regarding BDA's records and classification guidelines. It quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter to be considered afresh within three months.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari quashing impugned order dated 23.12.2021. Matter remitted to 1st Respondent for fresh consideration within three months.

Sri N Nagaraju Vs the Regional Joint Director — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.3402 OF 2022(KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. N NAGARAJU, S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO. 82, VASANTHAPURA , SUMBRAMANYAPURA POST, BENGALUR 560 061. (BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED )

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.G B MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶12

THE (DESIGNATED) DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU 560 009.

¶13

THE ASSISTGANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶14

¶15

THE TAHASILDAR, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU 560 009.

¶16

… RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.12.2021 PASSED BY THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS,BENGALURU,K.R.CIRCLE,BENGALURU I.E R1 VIDE ANNEXURE-K,AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL AND VOID AB INITIO AND ETC.,

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 23.12.2021 that negatived Petitioner’s Revision Petition wherein he had laid a challenge to the Endorsement dated 08.01.2021 issued by the Deputy Director of Land Records, Bengaluru.

¶22

The essential grievance of the Petitioner as

¶23

argued by his learned counsel happens to be that the subject land being Kallu Marate, it needs to be classified as A-Kharab land in terms of Government Notification

¶24

¶25

dated 16.05.2018; all the complications have arisen because of BDA’s name being found in the records.

¶26

Learned AGA appearing for the official

¶27

Respondents opposes the Petition contending that rightly or wrongly the records reflect the name of BDA as the Khatedar of the subject land; A-Kharab or B-Kharab being a question of fact, the Writ Court cannot undertake

¶28

a deeper examination of the same. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

¶29

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶30

parties and having perused the Petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant a limited indulgence as under and for the following reasons:

¶31

(a) The Government Notification dated 16.05.2016

¶32

classifies as to what is to be treated a A – Kharab and B –Kharab lands. The 3^rd Contention in the said Notification provides the yardstick for such classification of these lands; it reads as under:

¶33

¶34

“PÀAzÁAiÀÄ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À°è §gÀÄªÀ PÉ®ªÉÇAzÀÄ RgÁ§Ä d«ÄÃ£ÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C£ÀÄ§AzsÀzÀ°è£À ¥ÀnÖ-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀnÖ-2 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¸À¯ÁVzÉ. ¥ÀnÖ-1 gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ §¼ÀPÉAiÀÄ°ègÀÄªÀ RgÁ§ÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ‘J’ RgÁ§Ä ºÁUÀÆ SÁ¸ÀV JAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀtÂ¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ. ¥ÀnÖ-2gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ §¼ÀPÉAiÀÄ°ègÀÄªÀ RgÁ§ÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ §¼ÀPÉAiÀÄ°ègÀÄªÀ ©-RgÁ§Ä JAzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀPÁðj d«ÄÃ£ÀÄUÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀtÂ¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ.”

¶35

Petitioner relies upon a copy of the Survey Record dated 24.12.2005 wherein there is an Endorsement by the Authority, i.e., “Kallu Marate Bagge”. This aspect has not properly been adverted to by the Respondent – Regional Joint Director of Land Records. This happens to be first a error apparent on the face of the record.

¶36

(b) The impugned order is founded on an erroneous fact matrix, i.e., the land belongs to BDA inasmuch as, the land Records reflect its name; there is only a half truth in this. The name of BDA ought to have been treated as being insignificant, the Endorsement dated 02.08.2016 itself being issued by the BDA to the effect that the proposed acquisition of the land has been dropped in view of Division Bench decision of this Court

¶37

¶38

in W.A.No.662/2012. The operative portion of the

¶39

Endorsement reads as under:

¶40

“ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀAvÉ GvÀÛgÀºÀ½î ºÉÆÃ§½, ªÀ¸ÀAvÀ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉÃð £ÀA.19gÀ 03 JPÀgÉ 15 UÀÄAmÉ ¥ÉÊQ 0-30 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ D¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£É¬ÄAzÀ gÀzÀÄÝ¥Àr¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¹zÉ.”

¶41

In view of this, the Respondent – Authority ought to have construed the relevance or irrelevance of BDA’s name occurring in the Revenue Records after ascertaining whether the land claimed by the petitioner is a part of 30 Guntas in Sy.No.19 of Vasanthanagara Village. This having not been done constitutes another error apparent on the face of the record.

¶42

In view of the above, this petition succeeds in part; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order dated 23.12.2021 (Annexure-K). The matter is remitted to the portals of 1^st Respondent for consideration afresh in accordance with law within an outer limit of three months. All contentions are kept open.

¶43

¶44

It is open to the Petitioner to produce all the documents such as orders of the Writ Court, Sale Deeds and the BDA Endorsement.

¶45

It hardly needs to be stated that till this remand is heard & decided, the proceedings pending in LGC (P) No.69/2016 on the file of Karnataka Land Grabbing Special Prohibition Court, Bangalore shall be parked at a bay.

¶46

Now, no costs.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

Bsv

Sri N Nagaraju v. the Regional Joint Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri N Nagaraju v. the Regional Joint Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Aswathamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri R Somashekar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Venkateshappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Siddaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Ramakka Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Eshwarappa G Vs the Deputy Commissioner