Dismissed

B. S. Prasanna Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Oct 2022WP/4782/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of a revision petition by the Deputy Commissioner. The Court held that the revisional court is not the proper forum to adjudicate the validity of a registered conveyance. The petitioners were directed to approach the Civil Court for a decree proving the document spurious.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty reserved to approach the Civil Court for redressal if a decree in favour of petitioners is obtained.

B. S. Prasanna Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.4782 OF 2018 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

B.S.PRASANNAKUMAR, DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶9

SRI.SRIKANTH B P, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O LATE B S PRASANNAKUMAR,

¶10

SRI.SRINIDHI B P, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O LATE B S PRASANNAKUMAR,

¶11

BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.21/1, RANGA RAO ROAD, SHANKARAPURAM, BANGALORE – 560 004.

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI.A VIJAY KUMAR BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶17

¶18

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVANA, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶19

THE SPECIAL THASILDAR, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, KANDAYA BHAVAN, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶20

SRI.T.NARAYANASWAMY, SINCE DECEASED BY L.RS 5(A) AND 5(B),

¶21

5(A) SMT. N SANDHYA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O LATE T NARAYANASWAMY,

¶22

5(B) N SANTHOSH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O LATE T NARAYANASWAMY,

¶23

BOTH RESIDING AT NO.104/EWS 26, 1^ST D MAIN, 8^TH A CROSS, NEAR BALAMURI GANAPATHI TEMPLE, KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN, KENGERI, BANGALORE – 560 060.

¶24

SRI.SEENAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA,

¶25

SRI.THIMMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA,

¶26

SRI.NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA,

¶27

SRI.T.KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA,

¶28

¶29

RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 8 ARE SONS OF LATE THMMARAYAPPA AND ARE RESIDING AT PATTANAGERE VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE – 560 060.

¶30

SRI.ANIL GOWDA, DIRECTOR, M/S TANGLIN DEVELOPERS LTD., NO.1, RAHEJA CHAMBERS, 12, MUSEUM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶31

… RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI. R SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1-R4; SRI. N S BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R5(A &B),R6,R8 & R9; SRI. R.SHASHIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R10; R7 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.11.2017 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN REVISION PETITION NO.284/2015-16 AT ANNEXURE-A AND THE ORDER DATED 18.6.2015 PASSED BY THE R-3 IN R.A.(S) NO.313/2014-15 AT ANNEXURE-B.

¶34

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶35

ORDER

¶36

Petitioners having suffered rejection of their

¶37

revision petition filed under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 at the hands of Deputy Commissioner are grieving before the Writ Court. Their learned counsel vehemently argues that the subject registered document based upon which the Assistant

¶38

¶39

Commissioner had made the order u/s 136(3) is a spurious document and therefore, his order ought to have been set aside by the Deputy Commissioner. He hastens to add that the signature on the document in question is not of petitioners father.

¶40

After service of notice, Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are represented by the learned AGA and private Respondent Nos. 5 to 10 are represented by their private advocate. They oppose the writ petition contending that the revisional jurisdiction is restrictive; the revisional Court is not the right place to adjudge the validity of a registered conveyance based on which the Assistant Commissioner has made the order and therefore the order of the Deputy Commissioner cannot be voided. So contending, they seek dismissal of the writ petition.

¶41

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is broadly in agreement with the submission made on behalf of respondents. A Full Bench decision of this

¶42

¶43

Court in JAYAMMA & OTHERS Vs. State OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS, ILR 2020 KAR 1449 supports this view.

¶44

In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for the redressal of their grievance. If the Civil Court grants a decree in favour of the petitioners, the same shall be acted upon by the Revenue Authorities in terms of Proviso to Section 135 of the 1964 Act. All contentions are kept open.

¶45

No costs.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

Bsv

B. S. Prasanna Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. S. Prasanna Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Purushothamareddy Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Harini D Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Basava Poojary Vs State of Karnataka

N K Prakash Babu Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Smt Balkeesjan Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Balkeesjan Vs the State of Karnataka