Disposed

Smt. T Jayamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2023WP/10173/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition by a group of legal heirs seeking restoration of lands under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. Based on a Court Commissioner's report stating properties were fully constructed and possession not taken, the Court held the proceedings lapsed under the 1999 Repeal Act, precluding the State's claim.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. T Jayamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:39909 WP No. 10173 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10173 OF 2021 (ULC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT. T JAYAMMA W/O LATE YELLAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT 120/1, 4^TH CROSS V YELLAPPA REDDY COLONY ANNASANDRA PALYA, HAL POST BENGALURU - 560 017.

¶7

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶8

SMT. Y RADHA D/O LATE YELLAPPA REDDY W/O LATE MUNIREDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT SWETHA NILAYA 1^ST CROSS, BEHIND RAMA TEMPLE ANNASANDRA PALYA HAL POST BENGALURU - 560 017.

¶9

SHRI Y BABU REDDY S/O LATE YELLAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT 120/1, 4^TH CROSS, V YELLAPPA REDDY COLONY ANNASANDRA PALYA HAL POST BENGALURU - 560 017.

¶10

¶11

NC: 2023:KHC:39909 WP No. 10173 of 2021

¶12

SMT. Y SUSHEELA D/O LATE YELLAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT 55/56 JAI BHUBANESHWARI LAYOUT, 6^TH CROSS, CAMBRIDGE COLLEGE ROAD K R PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036.

¶13

SHRI Y RAMASHEKAR REDDY S/O LATE YELLAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO. 120/1, 4^TH CROSS, V YELLAPPA REDDY COLONY ANNASANDRA PALYA, HAL POST BENGALURU - 560 017.

¶14

SMT. Y BHARATHI D/O LATE YELLAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT 321, 8^TH CROSS, SHIVANANDA NAGAR BEHIND BEML QUARTERS NEW THIPPASANDRA BENGALURU - 560 075.

¶15

SHRI Y CHANDRAPPA REDDY S/O LATE YELLAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT 120/1, 4^TH CROSS V YELLAPPA REDDY COLONY ANNASANDRA PALYA, HAL POST BENGALURU – 560 017.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI.DEEPAK GADIYA, ADVOCATE)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:39909 WP No. 10173 of 2021

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.

¶22

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (FORMERLY FOR UBAN LAND CEILING) BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU.

¶23

THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE EAST TALUK K R PURAM BENGALURU - 560 036

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI.BHOJEGOUDA T KOLLER., AGA)

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RESTORE THE LANDS OF THE PETITIONERS COVERED BY NOTIFICATION AT ANNEXURE C.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:39909 WP No. 10173 of 2021

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The petitioners, who assert are the legal heirs of Sri V Yallappa Reddy, have sought for directions to restore certain extent of lands in Sy. Nos.106/1A, 188/3, 108/3, 113/14, 125, 125/3 and 149/2 of Vibuthipura Village, K R Puram Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk [now Bengaluru East Taluk], and these lands are referred to as ‘the schedule properties’.

¶32

The petitioners assert that when the proceedings under the Urban Land [Ceiling and Regulation] Act, 1976 [for short, ‘the ULC Act’ ] was initiated, Sri V Yallappa Reddy attended the proceedings but could not continue participating because of ill health, and as such, the notification under Section 10[1] and Section 10[3] of the ULC Act are issued on 08.01.1993 and respectively 03.06.1994. The petitioners contend that though the notification under Section 10[3] of the ULC Act is issued, neither award is passed nor possession of the subject property is taken, and in fact, the petitioners

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:39909 WP No. 10173 of 2021

¶35

contend that notice under Section 10[5] of the ULC Act is also not issued. The petitioners rely upon the RTCs for the aforesaid lands to justify possession of the subject properties.

¶36

On 25.01.2023, this Court, observing that the dispute could be easily addressed if a Court Commissioner inspects the subject properties and files a report as regards the nature of the subject properties and the construction if any thereon, has appointed the concerned Assistant Director of Land Records/City Surveyor, K R Puram to inspect the subject properties and file a report. The Assistant Director of Land Records, Bengaluru East Taluk, has filed a report enclosing the sketches. The sketches enclosed to the report read as follows:

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:39909 WP No. 10173 of 2021

¶39

1.Sy. No.
106/1A
2. Sy No.
188/3
3.Sy. No.
108/3

¶40

¶41

NC: 2023:KHC:39909 WP No. 10173 of 2021

¶42

Sy. No.
113/14
5. Sy. Nos.
125/1,
125/3
6. Sy. No.
149/2

¶43

¶44

NC: 2023:KHC:39909 WP No. 10173 of 2021

¶45

The Court Commissioner is categorical in his opinion that the entire extents in the subject properties are constructed. It is salient that with the Urban Land [Ceiling and Regulation] Repeal Act, 1999 coming into effect, the proceedings would lapse and the Government cannot assert any vested right therein if the possession of the subject property is not taken. In the light of this report, this Court must opine that the State cannot assert any right in the subject properties consequent to the notification under Section 10[3] of the ULC Act and the petition must be disposed of accordingly. This Court must observe that this disposal cannot vindicate the petitioners’ title to, or possession of, any portion of the subject properties especially when the Court Commissioner has observed that he is not able to say that the petitioners are in possession of some portions of the subject properties.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2023:KHC:39909 WP No. 10173 of 2021

¶48

The petition stands disposed of subject to the

¶49

observations as aforesaid.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

AN/-