Allowed

Shri Y T Narendra Babu v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Jul 2022WP/7829/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court recalled an order passed in a prior writ petition regarding land revenue rights. It directed the registry to restore that earlier petition for disposal, citing that the decision was non-est in law as the name on the revenue record was not contested by a proper notice to the heir.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the earlier order (W.P.No.57777/2014) is restored to file for disposal.

Shri Y T Narendra Babu 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 13^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.7829 OF 2016 (KLR RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI Y.T. NARENDRA BABU, S/O LATE SHRI Y.THAMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND SELF-EMPLOYMENT, R/AT NO.21, I CROSS, I MAIN, I STAGE, I PHASE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 010.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. G.A.SRIKANTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

THE TAHSILDAR, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU - 562 114.

¶14

SHRI KRISHNAPPA,S/O LATE MUNIKULLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, R/AT DOMMASANDRA VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK - 562 114, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.

¶15

... RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. V.SESHU, HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRI. H.N.SHASHIDHAR, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. KARTHIK C., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶17

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ORDER DATED 11.06.2015 (ANNEXURE-G) PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.57777/2014 IS NON-EST IN THE EYE OF LAW, VOID AND NOT BINDING ON THE PETITIONER AND HIS OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The prayer made in this writ petition is for issuance of a writ to declare the order dated 11.06.2015 passed in W.P.No.57777/2014 as non-est in the eye of law, void and not binding on the petitioner.

¶22

It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.3 herein filed W.P.No.57777/2014 seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent - authorities to consider his case for changing the revenue records such as RTC and mutation registration to reveal his name in column Nos. 9 and 12 of computerized RTC and mutation registration in respect of schedule property. The said claim was made by the petitioner therein on the basis that after introduction of computerized RTC, the revenue

¶23

¶24

authorities did not continue his name in the revenue records for reasons best known to them and being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondentauthorities to consider his successive representations to issue computerized RTC and mutation register, the said writ petition was filed.

¶25

Averments in the said writ petition was to the effect that pursuant to an alleged order dated 31.03.1967 and endorsement dated 01.04.1967, petitioner therein was stated to have been granted occupancy rights and was in possession of the said land and the revenue records stood in his name.

¶26

The petitioner herein Sri.Y.T.Narendra Babu, has filed the present writ petition contending that W.P.No.57777/2014 had been filed by suppressing material facts. It is contended that the grant certificate relied upon by respondent No.3 herein is a fraudulent document and there was no such grant ever made. It is also submitted that in 2014, in which year

¶27

¶28

W.P.No.57777/2014 was filed, the name of the present petitioner's mother Marulamma was found in the revenue records and without making Marulamma as a party to the said writ petition, the said petition could not have been filed seeking for issuance of a mandamus.

¶29

Since a contention was raised that the order of

¶30

the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams abolition dated 31.03.1967 and consequent endorsement issued on 01.04.1967 were fraudulent, by an order dated 02.06.2022, the Deputy Commissioner was directed to file an affidavit as to whether there was any such order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner on 31.03.1967 and whether an endorsement had also been issued on 01.04.1967.

¶31

In compliance with the said order, the Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk has filed an affidavit stating that on verification of the records in their custody, it has been found that there is no documents available in their office relatable to case No.INAJ.PR.728/1966-67

¶32

¶33

dated 31.03.1967 and also there was no record relating to the endorsement dated 01.04.1967 issued by the office of the Special Deputy Commissioner.

¶34

Without going to the question as to whether there is an order of grant in favour of respondent No.3 herein and whether the documents produced were fraudulent, in my view, for the purposes of the present writ petition, it would be necessary to review and re-call the order dated 11.06.2015 passed in W.P.No.57777/2014, for the simple reason that the prayer sought for in the said writ petition could not have been sought for by the petitioner therein in the light of indisputable fact that in 2014, when W.P.No.57777/2014 was filed, the petitioner therein was aware that the RTC stood in the name of Marulamma (the present petitioner’s mother).

¶35

In the light of the specific averment in paragraph 3 of the said writ petition that petitioner therein became aware that his name was omitted in the revenue

¶36

¶37

record after seeing the computerized records, which, by itself, clearly indicates that petitioner therein had seen the computerized records as on the date of filing of the said writ petition and the copy of the computerized copy of the RTC of the year 2014, which was produced by the petitioner herein, clearly states that it was the name of Marulamma which had been entered in column No.9.

¶38

Thus, if the name of a particular person is already entered in the revenue record, it was not for the petitioner in W.P.No.57777/2014 (respondent No.3 herein)

¶39

to have sought for a mandamus to consider his representation. If he was aggrieved by the entry of any name in the RTC, his remedy was elsewhere and he could not seek for a mandamus to consider his application.

¶40

It is also pertinent to state that, since RTC stood in the name of the mother of the petitioner herein, it was absolutely essential that the petitioner in W.P.No.57777/2014 should have atleast impleaded Marulamma in the said writ petition. Since an order was

¶41

¶42

sought to be obtained behind the back of Marulamma, whose name was in the revenue records, the order dated 11.06.2015 passed in W.P.No.57777/2014 deserves to be reviewed and the same is accordingly re-called.

¶43

In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of SHIVDEO SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB - AIR 1963 SC 1909 , the present writ petition filed seeking for reviewing the order dated 11.06.2015 passed in W.P.No.57777/2014 would have to be entertained since the petitioner herein was not a party to the said order.

¶44

Consequently, W.P.No.57777/2014 is restored to file by allowing the present writ petition .

¶45

As narrated above, since it is indisputable that revenue records stand in the name of Marulamma as on the date of filing of W.P.No.57777/2014, the prayer made in the said petition for a direction to the respondentauthorities to consider the representation of the petitioner therein(respondent No.3 herein) for entering his name

¶46

¶47

cannot be granted. In view of this position, it would be necessary to direct the Registry to post W.P.No.57777/2014 on 19.07.2022 for disposal in the terms stated above. Ordered accordingly.

¶48

SD/JUDGE

¶49

gpg

Shri Y T Narendra Babu v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Y T Narendra Babu 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. Anusuyamma S Vs the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate

Vittala Shetty Vs the Deputy Commissiner

Sri. Appajigowda Vs Assistant Comissioner

Sri.T.K.Krishna Prasad Vs State of Karnataka

S. Shivaram Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Muddu @ Madhu Vs the State of Karnataka