Allowed

Sri Ramanjini, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Jun 2022WP/37304/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition challenging an order declining khata transfer due to a pendency of civil suit. The Court held that the Panchayat's role is limited to verifying existing rights via partition deeds and remitted the demand for title adjudication to the Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent No.3 to transfer the khata of the subject property to the name of Sri Narayanaswamy on the basis of the partition deed dated 14.09.2012.

Sri Ramanjini, Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.37304 OF 2013 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. RAMANJINI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O LATE HUCHEERAPPA, RESIDENT OF SADAPPANAHALLI @ ETHINAODAYAPURA VILLAGE, SULEBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562129 SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR.

¶9

1(a) NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O LATE HUCHEERAPPA, R/A SADAPPANAHALLI @ YETTIINAWODEYARAYAPURA VILLAGE, SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY M.V., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATH RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶14

¶15

THE ZILLA PANCHAYATH BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BANGALORE-01. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶16

GIDDAPPANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH GIDDAPPANAHALLI, SULEBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562129, REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

¶17

S.M.JAYARAMAPPA S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT SADAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, SULEBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶20

SRI. R. SHARATH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2;

¶21

SRI. M.S.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3; SRI. G. MANIVANNAN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4 CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDERS DATED 11.09.2014 AND 16.02.2016)

¶22

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT NO.SUM\BNG GRAM GP\PS\CR\64\2011-12 DATED 20.07.2013, VIDE ANNEXURE-J, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2, BY DECLARING THE SAME AS ILLEGAL AND ETC.

¶23

¶24

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRILIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner (since deceased) had challenged a communication dated 20.07.2013 issued by the respondent No.2 to the Deputy Commissioner by which he informed that khata cannot be effected in the name of Smt. Venkatamma i.e., the sister-in-law of the petitioner and their family members in respect of the subject property in view of the pendency of a civil proceeding in F.R.No.R.A.110/2012 between Smt. Venkatamma and the respondent No.4 herein. The petitioner also sought for a direction to the respondent No.3 to transfer the khata of the subject property to his name.

¶27

The subject property is claimed by the petitioner to be bearing khaneshumari No.6, new No.67, measuring East to West (35 feet + 70 feet)/2 and North to South 93 feet and situate at Sadappanahalli village (Ethinaodayarapura), Sulibele Hobli, Hosakote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District.

¶28

¶29

The petitioner claims that the subject property was his ancestral property and the khata of the property

¶30

stood in the name of his grandfather, Sri Doddavenkatappa. After the death of Sri

¶31

Doddavenkatappa, his father Sri Huccheerappa succeeded to the property and his name was entered in the Panchayat records in respect of the subject property. The petitioner claims that the respondent No.4 herein and his brother tried to interfere with the lawful possession of his father which compelled him to file a suit in O.S. No.2/2002 before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) and JMFC., Hosakote, for perpetual injunction. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.4 claiming title to the property bearing khaneshumari Nos.11, 12 and 14 filed O.S. No.12/2000 before the Court of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC., Hosakote, for perpetual injunction and the said suit was decreed on 04.09.2012. The father of the petitioner, Sri Hucheerappa, Sri Narayanaswamy and Smt. Venkatamma challenged the said decree in R.A. No.110/2012 where the First Appellate Court (Court of I Additional Senior Civil

¶32

¶33

Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru) allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit in O.S. No.12/2000 in terms of the Judgment and Decree dated 17.06.2019. It is claimed that after the death of their father, the petitioner and his brothers and sisters effected a partition on 14.09.2012 in terms of which the property in question fell to the share of the petitioner herein. The petitioner approached the Panchayat to enter his name in the records by replacing/deleting his father's name. Since the respondent No.3 did not take any action, the petitioner approached the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, which referred the case to the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District, to hold an enquiry and pass appropriate Orders.

¶34

Thereupon, the Deputy Commissioner

¶35

requested the respondent No.2 to consider the prayer of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders to effect the khata in the name of the petitioner in respect of the subject property. In this regard, the respondent No.2 addressed a letter to the Taluk Panchayat, Hosakote Taluk,

¶36

¶37

which was forwarded to the respondent No.3. Nevertheless, the respondent No.3 without holding any enquiry reported to the respondent No.2 that the property claimed by the petitioner in khaneshumari No.67 and the property claimed by the respondent No.4 in khata No.137 were one and the same and therefore, the khata cannot be effected in the name of the petitioner. Based on such a report, the respondent No.2 addressed a communication dated 20.07.2013 declining to transfer the khata of the subject property in the name of Smt. Venkatamma, the sister-in-law of the petitioner and their family members. It is this endorsement which is challenged in this writ petition.

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that until the year 2011, the khata of the property bearing khaneshumari No.67 stood in the name of the father of the petitioner and upon the execution of a partition deed dated 14.09.2012, the property fell to the share of the petitioner herein and therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondent No.3 to enter the name of the petitioner. He

¶39

¶40

contended that if the respondent No.4 and Sri Narayanaswamy had any claim to any property in question, they may establish the same in the manner known to law and thereafter, escalate their request for entering their name in the khata register.

¶41

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that the records of the subject property, bearing new khaneshumari No.67 (old No.6) disclosed that it belonged to Anjaneya Swamy Temple and therefore, the property claimed by the petitioner is not available and hence, the khata that stood in the name of the father of the petitioner was without any basis. He contended that the respondent No.4 claimed title to the property bearing khata No.137 based on the sale deed dated 10.09.1971. Therefore, the respondent No.3 was justified in entering the name of the respondent No.4 in the khata register in respect of the property bearing khata No.137 and khaneshumari No.14.

¶42

¶43

The fact that the name of the father of the petitioner was entered in the khata register of the subject property is not in dispute. It may be that such an entry was based on title or not. If that be so, the very fact that the respondent No.4 has laid claim to upset the khata that stood in the name of the father of the petitioner indicates that both the petitioner and the respondent No.4 are rivalling over the same property. In fact, the report of the Panchayat Development Officer also indicates that the petitioner and respondent No.4 are fighting over the same property. While the petitioner claims that the property bearing new khaneshumari No.67 was owned and possessed by his father, the respondent No.4 claims that the property bearing khaneshumari No.14 and khata No.137 was owned by his father having purchased it under a sale deed dated 10.09.1971. This question cannot be decided by the respondent No.3. All that the respondent No.3 is bound to look into is whether as on the date of the request for transfer of khata, whether the person who makes such a request was a beneficiary of a transfer

¶44

¶45

executed by the existing khatedar. Anything beyond this cannot be looked into by the respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 also could not have considered the question whether the property claimed by the petitioner and the respondent No.4 were one and the same.

¶46

In that view of the matter, this Writ Petition is disposed off directing the respondent No.3 to transfer the khata of the subject property to the name of Sri Narayanaswamy, son of late Hucheerappa on the basis of the partition deed dated 14.09.2012. If the respondent No.4 has any grievance over the continuation of the name of Sri Narayanaswamy, son of late Hucheerappa, in the khata register in respect of the subject property, he may establish his title to the property in question before the Civil Court. The mere entry of the name of Sri Narayanaswamy, son of late Hucheerappa, in the khata register would not confer any better title upon him and he cannot oust any other person if he is in possession of the subject property. Likewise, the entry of the name of Sri

¶47

¶48

Narayanaswamy, son of late Hucheerappa, in the khata register of the subject property will not come in the way of the adjudication of the claim of the respondent No.4 which is now pending consideration before this Court in RSA No.1190/2019.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

sma

Sri Ramanjini, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ramanjini, 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

Sri R Siddappa Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Rathnamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Ashok Subbaiah @ Subbaiah Pullera Vs Deputy Commissioner

M/S Shakti Developers Private Limited Vs the Commissioner

Smt Vasanta D S Vs Government of Karnataka

Kaniyara Seva Samaja Vs the State of Karnataka