Disposed

Sri Earaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Nov 2022WP/47516/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court disposed of a writ petition and two miscellaneous first appeals. The court continued a status quo order from 2017 pending the disposal of pending title suits and directed the trial court to dispose of the suits within six months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition and appeals disposed; status quo order continued pending outcome of suits; suits to be disposed within six months.

Sri Earaiah 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 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.47516 OF 2015 (KLR-RES) C/W MFA NO.3961 OF 2016(CPC), MFA NO.3962 OF 2016 (CPC)

¶7

IN W.P.NO.47516/2015:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI.ERAIAH, S/O LATE DASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 93 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, BANNIKUPPE VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 117. (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED)

¶10

SRI.KARIYAPPA, S/O LATE NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, KAKARAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 117.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI.K.G.SADASHIVAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA - 562 117.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION, RAMANAGARA - 562 117.

¶18

THE TAHASILDAR, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA - 562 117.

¶19

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA - 562 117.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.C.N.MAHADESHWARAN, AGA)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 DATED 7.9.2015 VIDE ANN-S TO W.P. BY ISSUING WRIT OF ‘CERTIORARI’ AND ETC.,

¶23

IN MFA NO.3961/2016:

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

SRI.KARIYAPPA, S/O LATE NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, KAKAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARAM TALUK, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT – 562 109.

¶26

…APPELLANT

¶27

(BY SRI.K.G.SADASHIVAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶28

AND:

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT, RAMANAGARAM - 562 117.

¶32

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARAM SUB-DIVISION, RAMANAGARAM - 562 117.

¶33

THE TAHASILDAR, RAMANAGARAM TALUK, RAMANAGARAM - 562 117.

¶34

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT, RAMANAGARAM - 562 117.

¶35

…RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI.C.N.MAHADESHWARAN, AGA)

¶37

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLIII RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.04.2016 PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 IN O.S.NO.290/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, RAMANAGARA, REJECTING I.A.NO.2 FILED U/O 39 RULE 1 & 2 R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC.

¶38

IN MFA NO.3962/2016:

¶39

BETWEEN:

¶40

SRI.ERAIAH, S/O LATE DASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, BANNIKUPPE VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARAM TALUK, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT – 562 109.

¶41

…APPELLANT

¶42

(BY SRI.K.G.SADASHIVAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶43

AND:

¶44

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

¶45

¶46

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT, RAMANAGARAM - 562 117.

¶47

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARAM SUB-DIVISION, RAMANAGARAM - 562 117.

¶48

THE TAHASILDAR, RAMANAGARAM TALUK, RAMANAGARAM - 562 117.

¶49

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT, RAMANAGARAM - 562 117.

¶50

…RESPONDENTS

¶51

(BY SRI.C.N.MAHADESHWARAN, AGA)

¶52

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLIII RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.04.2016 PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 IN O.S.NO.289/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, RAMANAGARAM, REJECTING I.A.NO.2 FILED U/O 39 RULE 1 & 2 R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC.

¶53

THIS PETITION AND THESE MFA’S ARE COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶54

ORDER

¶55

Petitioners in W.P.No.47516/2015, lay a challenge to

¶56

the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 7.9.2015, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-S whereby he has taken cognizance of Assistant Commissioner’s letter dated 14/15.07.2014 in substance holding that the land belongs to the Government and accordingly, the entries in the

¶57

¶58

revenue records are directed to be mutated in favour of the Government. In the Miscellaneous First Appeals, the Plaintiffs as the Appellants, are laying a challenge to the orders of the trial Court whereby interim protection has been declined by rejecting their IAs filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC, 1908. These MFAs are filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code.

¶59

Learned counsel for the Petitioners vehemently argues that wrongly, the Deputy Commissioner has made the order when ideally speaking, he ought to have set-aside Assistant Commissioner’s letter dated 14/15.07.2014; now that his clients have filed declaration suits in O.S.No.189/2015 & O.S.No.290/2015, whose trial is half a through and therefore, the entries as existed prior to 14/15.07.2014 be continued in the name of his clients, of course, subject to outcome of these two suits. He also points out that even the Appeals in the subject MFAs also may be disposed off continuing the interim order granted by this court directing the parties to maintain status quo till after the disposal of the said suits.

¶60

¶61

Learned AGA appearing for the official

¶62

Respondents vehemently opposes the petition contending that the proviso to Section 135 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 mandates making entries in the Revenue Records to accord with the declaratory decrees of the civil Courts and therefore, this Court exercising a limited supervisory jurisdiction constitutionally vested under Article 227 need not undertake a deeper examination of the impugned orders. He also submits that though interim direction for maintaining the status quo was granted in the subject MFAs, now that the entries are already made in favour of Government, the interim order should not be continued and that of appeals be dismissed subject to outcome of the pending suits. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition and accordingly the Miscellaneous First Appeals.

¶63

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Case Papers, this Court is disposing

¶64

¶65

off this Petition and the two Appeals as under and the for the following reasons:

¶66

(a) The Assistant Commissioner having looked into

¶67

certain records, has issued the letter dated 14/15.07.2014 forming an opinion that the lands in question belong to the government; that opinion appears, is acted upon by the Deputy Commissioner by rejecting Petitioners’ Revision filed under Section 136(3) of the 1964 Act. A deeper examination of the Assistant Commissioner’s letter the Deputy Commissioner’s order now may not be undertaken inasmuch as, Petitioners have filed two comprehensive title suits as mentioned above and therefore, they can work out their remedy tjerein as rightly contended by the learned AGA banking upon the proviso to Section 135 of the 1964 Act. However, either the letter of the Assistant Commissioner or the order of the Deputy Commissioner, shall not be used by both the sides in the subject suits.

¶68

(b) There is also force in the submission of learned

¶69

counsel for the Petitioners in the Writ Petition and

¶70

¶71

Appellants in the Miscellaneous First Appeals that there is status quo order dated 18.07.2017 granted by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and thus, since more than five years, the same has been continuing and therefore, the same needs to be continued till after the trial & disposal of subject suits. This submission is consistent with the decision of Hon’ble ANDHRA PRADESH High Court in DIRECTOR DEFENCE R & D LABORATORIES VS. C. PANDA , AIR 1977 AP 7. Ordinarily, the court should not rescind the long obtaining interim protections when main battle is being fought. The fair submission of learned AGA that the issue of maintainability shall not be raised in the subject suits, is noted.

¶72

In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition and Miscellaneous First Appeals are disposed off with the above observations. The status quo order granted on 18.7.2017 in the subject MFAs shall continue till after & subject to outcome of the suits in question, all contentions are kept

¶73

open.

¶74

¶75

It hardly needs to be stated that the entries made pursuant to the letter of the Assistant Commissioner and as affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner in the impugned order shall continue as they are, subject to outcome of the suits.

¶76

The learned trial Judge is requested to try & dispose off the subject suits, preferably within an outer limit of six months.

¶77

The Registry to send the original Records immediately in Appeals.

¶78

Costs made easy.

¶79

Sd/JUDGE

¶80

cbc

Sri Earaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Earaiah 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt B R Bharathi Vs State of Karnataka

M P Prabhudas Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. N Padma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Munivenkatappa Vs the Special Deputy Commissioner

Smt Narasamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Ravi Vs State of Karnataka