Allowed

S Jagadeesh v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2022WP/6304/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition under Article 227 quashing a Deputy Commissioner's order. The Court held that revenue entries must reflect registered conveyances and dismissed claims regarding the delay in mutation and allegations of road usage affecting ownership.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; Revenue entries restored to Petitioners' favor in terms of registered Sale Deed; compliance report required within eight weeks.

S Jagadeesh Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER , 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.6304 OF 2019(KLR-RR/SUR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

S JAGADEESH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶8

S GURUPRASAD AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶9

BOTH ARE SONS OF LATE SANJEEVAPPA, R/AT NO.7, 7^TH CROSS, ASHRAYA LAYOUT, TAMBU CHETTYPALYA, BENGALURU-560 036.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI.R CHANDRANNA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU CITY DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, KANDYA BHAVANA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

SMT SHANTHAMARY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, W/O ANTHONI SWAMY, R/AT NO.27, ST.POLE,

¶16

¶17

BEHIND ARAMIT CHURCH, V. NAGENAHALLI, R.T.NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 032.

¶18

MR.ARUN H R, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O RAJA REDDY, RESIDING AT NO.455, HIG COLONY, 7^TH CROSS, BANGALORE NORTH.

¶19

… RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.C N MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI.M.A. SEBASTAIN, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI.ARVIND B REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.04.2018 MADE IN RP NO.109/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE R-1.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petitioners are knocking at the doors of Writ Court

¶25

for assailing the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 27.04.2018 (Annexure-A) whereby the revision petition in RP No.109/2014 filed by the contesting private Respondents herein having been favoured, some entry otherwise availing to the benefit of Petitioners in respect of the land beyond 3 Acres 3 Guntas has been set at naught. Learned counsel for the Petitioners vehemently argues that the change of katha has to be founded on

¶26

¶27

conveyances and also such that katha has to be confined to the extent of land described in the conveyances; this having been ignored, the impugned order has a legal infirmity warranting indulgence of Writ Court.

¶28

Learned AGA appearing for the official

¶29

Respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the private Respondents vehemently oppose the Petition contending that this is the first time that the petitioners moved the Tahsildar with a delay of twenty years; secondly, they have already given up the claim not only in respect of 3 acres 3 guntas but also the land under this; therefore, the impugned order cannot be faltered. So contending, they seek dismissal of the writ petition.

¶30

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, the mutation of entries should, as rightly argued by learned counsel for the Petitioners, be founded on the registered Conveyance namely, the deed dated

¶31

¶32

17.09.1992. This Sale Deed comprises only 3 Acres & 3 Guntas out of 3 Acres & 16 Guntas of land wherefrom it is carved out. That being the position, the entry made by the Tashildar in their favour could not have been set at naught.

¶33

The vehement contention advanced on behalf of the private Respondents that the Petitioners had sought for change of katha with a delay of twenty years, does not impress the Court inasmuch as, when there is a registered instrument, there is no duty cast on the citizen to inform the Revenue Authorities at all seeking mutation of entries. Secondly, no provision of law is brought to the notice of Court which prescribes limitation period for standing before the Revenue Officers which claim of the kind. Although such a limitation is prescribed for an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 alone.

¶34

The last contention of private Respondents that the subject Sale Deed itself mentions about the

¶35

¶36

remaining land being used for road, even if accepted in terms of the recitals therein, the Petitioners’ ownership over the same does not wither away by that; only nature of land user undergoes change and not the ownership thereby as such.

¶37

In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing impugned order. As a consequence, the order made by the Tahsildar is revived and the Revenue entries shall be restored in terms thereof within a period of eight weeks and further compliance report shall be filed before the Registrar General of this Court, failing which, heavy costs will be levied on the jurisdictional authorities, payable them personally on a Memo being moved by the Petitioners.

¶38

Now, no costs.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

Bsv

S Jagadeesh v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Jagadeesh v. the Deputy Commissioner

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

Smt Gangamma Vs State of Karnataka

Muniyamma Vs the Government of Karnataka

Mohammad Sab Vs the State of Karnataka

Purushotham Vs Deputy Commissioner

Mr. Udayshankar Shenoy Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri G Devendra Gowda Vs the Deputy Commissioner