Dismissed

Smt v. Shashikala v the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2023WP/1215/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed three Writ Petitions challenging an impugned Revenue officer order regarding land grant shares. The Court held petitioners failed to prove a valid grant to their father or satisfy requirements for subsequent title, rendering the order valid.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 08.10.2020 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner was affirmed; all Writ Petitions stand dismissed.

Smt v Shashikala Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:39610 WP No. 1215 of 2021 C/W WP NOS.1304 OF 2021 & 1924 OF 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 1215 OF 2021 (KLR-RES) C/W

¶8

WRIT PETITION NOS. 1304 OF 2021 & 1924 OF 2021

¶9

IN WP NO.1215 OF 2021

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR M S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SMT. V. SHASHIKALA W/O. K.B. CHINNAPURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT SITE NO.42, IN SY NO.156/35, HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, HULIMANGALA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105.

¶13

SMT. KAGITANDLAM SANTHOSH KUMARI W/O. KAGITANDLAM DINAKAR BABU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT SITE NO.44, IN SY NO.156/35, HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, HULIMANGALA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105.

¶14

SRI. RAMESH GOWDA S/O. MUNIVENKATAPPA,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:39610 WP No. 1215 of 2021 C/W WP NOS.1304 OF 2021 & 1924 OF 2021

¶17

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT SITE NO.28, IN SY NO.156/35, HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, HULIMANGALA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105.

¶18

SRI. MAHENDRA MALI S/O SUKARAM, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT SITE NO.1 AND 18, IN SY NO.156/35, HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, HULIMANGALA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105.

¶19

SMT. V. RENUKA W/O. N. RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT SITE NO.25, IN SY NO.156/35, HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, HULIMANGALA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105.

¶20

SRI. VASANTHA KESHAVA KUMAR V.R. S/O. VALLURU RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT SITE NO.26, IN SY NO.156/35, HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, HULIMANGALA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105.

¶21

SRI. G. SRINIVAS S/O. G. MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶22

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:39610 WP No. 1215 of 2021 C/W WP NOS.1304 OF 2021 & 1924 OF 2021

¶23

RESIDING AT SITE NO.33, IN SY NO.156/35, HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, HULIMANGALA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105.

¶24

SRI. PERAM YOGIRAMIREDDY S/O. YOGIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT SITE NO.32, IN SY NO.156/35, HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, HULIMANGALA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105.

¶25

SRI. SIDDAIAH BELLEY S/O. SEENAIAH BELLEY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT SITE NO.27, IN SY NO.156/35, HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, HULIMANGALA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105.

¶26

SMT. MEERA DEVI W/O. HUKMARAM DAGADI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT SITE NO.8 AND 11, IN SY NO.156/35, HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, HULIMANGALA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105.

¶27

SRI. BHOMARAM CHOWDHARY S/O. KUMARAM, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT SITE NO.8 AND 11,

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:39610 WP No. 1215 of 2021

¶30

C/W WP NOS.1304 OF 2021 & 1924 OF 2021

¶31

IN SY NO.156/35, HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, HULIMANGALA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105.

¶32

SRI. R. SUBRAMANYAM S/O. R. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT SITE NO.24, IN SY NO.156/35, HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, HULIMANGALA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105.

¶33

SRI. SURESH KUMAR S/O. KALURAMJI MALI, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT SITE NO.7 AND 12, IN SY NO.156/35, HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, HULIMANGALA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105.

¶34

SRI. KOTTANA SATYANARAYANA S/O. LATE. APPAL SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT SITE NO.31, IN SY NO.156/35, HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, HULIMANGALA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105.

¶35

SRI. PERGU HARIBABU S/O. CHINNANARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT SITE NO.31, IN SY NO.156/35, HULIMANGALA VILLAGE,

¶36

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:39610 WP No. 1215 of 2021

¶37

C/W

¶38

WP NOS.1304 OF 2021 & 1924 OF 2021

¶39

HULIMANGALA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105.

¶40

SRI. GOUTHAM JAIN S/O. LATE AMARCHAND JAIN, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT SITE NO.9 AND 10 IN SY NO.156/35, HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, HULIMANGALA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105.

¶41

SRI. MANARAM S/O. NARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT SITE NO.5, IN SY NO.156/35, HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, HULIMANGALA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105.

¶42

SRI. MOHAN LAL S/O. PREMA RAMJI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT SITE NO.48, IN SY NO.156/35, HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, HULIMANGALA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105.

¶43

SRI. VENKATESH A. S/O. AYER, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT SITE NO.2, IN SY NO.156/35, HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, HULIMANGALA GRAMAPANCHAYATH,

¶44

¶45

NC: 2023:KHC:39610 WP No. 1215 of 2021 C/W WP NOS.1304 OF 2021 & 1924 OF 2021

¶46

JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105.

¶47

…PETITIONERS

¶48

(BY SRI. VIJAYA SHEKARA GOWDA V., ADVOCATE)

¶49

AND:

¶50

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR BEEDI, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶51

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-2 BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560009.

¶52

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER -2 BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶53

THE TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, ANEKAL - 562 106.

¶54

…RESPONDENTS

¶55

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA)

¶56

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.10.2020 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT 2 / SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-2, BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU DISTRICT AS FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶57

¶58

NC: 2023:KHC:39610 WP No. 1215 of 2021 C/W WP NOS.1304 OF 2021 & 1924 OF 2021

¶59

IN WP NO.1304 OF 2021

¶60

BETWEEN

¶61

1 . SRI. H. J. NAGESH S/O LATE JOGATTAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶62

2 . SMT. REVATHI D/O H J NAGESH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶63

3 . SRI. SAGAR S/O H J NAGESH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

¶64

PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT HULIMANGALA VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK 560105 BENGALURU DISTRICT.

¶65

4 . SMT. KANAKAMMA D/O LATE JOGATTAPPA W/O PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶66

5 . SMT. NAGARANI D/O LATE JOGUTTAPPA W/O MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶67

PETITIONERS 4 AND 5 ARE RESIDING AT HEDENALLUR VILLAGE HOSUR TALUK KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT TAMIL NADU-635109.

¶68

6 . SMT. ASHWATHAMMA D/O LATE JOGGATAPPA W/O MUNIYAPPA

¶69

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:39610 WP No. 1215 of 2021 C/W WP NOS.1304 OF 2021 & 1924 OF 2021

¶70

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT BOMMANDAPALLI VILLAGE HOSUR TALUK - 635 109 KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT TAMILNADU.

¶71

7 . SMT. PARVATHAMMA D/O LATE JOGATTAPPA W/O NARAYANSWAMY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT SADARAMANGALA VILLAGE BENGALURU EAST TALUK 560048 BENGALURU.

¶72

PETITIONERS NO. 1 TO 7 ARE REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER SRI H P THIMMA REDDY S/O H T PILLA REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT HULIMANGALA VILLAGE HULIMANGALA POST JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560105.

¶73

….PETITIONERS

¶74

(BY SRI. BHADRINATH R., ADVOCATE)

¶75

AND

¶76

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUIDLING BENGALURU - 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶77

2 . THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-2 BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION BENGALURU DISTRICT K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560009.

¶78

¶79

NC: 2023:KHC:39610 WP No. 1215 of 2021 C/W WP NOS.1304 OF 2021 & 1924 OF 2021

¶80

3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560009.

¶81

4 . THE TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK ANEKAL-562106 BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.

¶82

..RESPONDENTS

¶83

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA)

¶84

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.10.2020 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT 2 / SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER -2, BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU DISTRICT AS FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶85

IN WP NO.1924 OF 2021

¶86

BETWEEN

¶87

1 . SRI KIRAN KUMAR VANDANAPU S/O. CHALAPATHI RAO VANDANAPU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶88

2 . SMT. TADIKONDA SHANTHI W/O. KIRAN KUMAR VANDANAPU AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

¶89

PETITIONERS NO.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT NO. SITE NO. 36 IN SY NO.156/35, HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, HULIMANGALA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,

¶90

10 -

¶91

NC: 2023:KHC:39610 WP No. 1215 of 2021 C/W WP NOS.1304 OF 2021 & 1924 OF 2021

¶92

BENGALURU - 560 105.

¶93

3 . SRI. DURAI R. S/O. RAJAMANICKAM, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO. SITE NO. 4 IN SY NO.156/35, HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, HULIMANGALA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105.

¶94

4 . SMT. VIJAYA W/O. SUBRAMANI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO. SITE NO. 29, IN SY NO.156/35, HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, HULIMANGALA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105.

¶95

5 . SRI. M. MADHUSUDHAN S/O. MANJUNATH A, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT NO. SITE NO. 37A IN SY NO.156/35, HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, HULIMANGALA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105.

¶96

6 . SRI. NAVEEN P KUMAR S/O. R. PUNYAKOTI, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT NO. SITE NO. 40 IN SY NO.156/35, HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, HULIMANGALA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105.

¶97

11 -

¶98

NC: 2023:KHC:39610 WP No. 1215 of 2021

¶99

C/W

¶100

WP NOS.1304 OF 2021 & 1924 OF 2021

¶101

7 . SRI. DEEPAK KUMAR S/O. LATE SUNIL KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT NO. SITE NO. 43 IN SY NO.156/35, HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, HULIMANGALA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105.

¶102

8 . SRI. C GURU SAI SASIDHAR S/O. C LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO. SITE NO. 20, IN SY NO.156/35, HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, HULIMANGALA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105.

¶103

9 . SRI. PERUGU HARIBABU S/O. P CHINNA NARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO. SITE NO. 23 IN SY NO.156/35, HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, HULIMANGALA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105.

¶104

10 . SRI. SUBRAHMANIAM S S

¶105

S/O. SRINIVASAN M.S., AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO. SITE NO. 45 IN SY NO.156/35, HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, HULIMANGALA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105.

¶106

11 . SRI. AMBUJ KUMAR

¶107

12 -

¶108

NC: 2023:KHC:39610 WP No. 1215 of 2021 C/W

¶109

WP NOS.1304 OF 2021 & 1924 OF 2021

¶110

S/O. RAMSNEHI THAKUR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO. SITE NO. 19 IN SY NO.156/35, HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, HULIMANGALA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105.

¶111

12 . SRI. ABDUL GAFOOR MOHAMED YOUSUF S/O. MOHAMMAD YOUSUF, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO. SITE NO. 16 IN SY NO.156/35, HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, HULIMANGALA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105.

¶112

13 . SRI. ULLAS KRISHNA NAIK S/O. KRISHNA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO. SITE NO. 37 AND 38 IN SY NO.156/35, HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, HULIMANGALA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105.

¶113

14 . SMT. LEELABAI W/O. MOHANLAL, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO. SITE NO. 47 IN SY NO.156/35, HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, HULIMANGALA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105.

¶114

15 . SRI. SHETAN RAM

¶115

13 -

¶116

NC: 2023:KHC:39610 WP No. 1215 of 2021 C/W

¶117

WP NOS.1304 OF 2021 & 1924 OF 2021

¶118

S/O. RAMSUKHJI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO. SITE NO. 6 AND 13 IN SY NO.156/35, HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, HULIMANGALA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105.

¶119

16 . SMT. INDIRA DEVI W/O. KHIYARAM PRAJAPAT, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO. SITE NO. 6 AND 13 IN SY NO.156/35, HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, HULIMANGALA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105.

¶120

17 . SMT. THENMOZHI ELUMALAI W/O. ELUMALAI G, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NO. SITE NO. 34 IN SY NO.156/35, HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, HULIMANGALA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105.

¶121

18 . SMT. MEERA ROY CHOUDHURY W/O. LATE. NIL ROY CHOUDHURY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO. SITE NO. 41 IN SY NO.156/35, HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, HULIMANGALA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105.

¶122

..PETITIONERS

¶123

14 -

¶124

NC: 2023:KHC:39610 WP No. 1215 of 2021 C/W

¶125

WP NOS.1304 OF 2021 & 1924 OF 2021

¶126

(BY SRI. VIJAYA SHEKARA GOWDA V., ADVOCATE)

¶127

AND

¶128

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVUNUE DEPARTMENT, MS BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶129

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶130

2 . THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER - 2 BENGALURU SOUTH SUB - DIVISION, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, KG ROAD, BENGALURU - 560009.

¶131

3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

¶132

BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION, ENFORCEMENT CELL, TASK FORCE, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, KG ROAD, BENGALURU - 560009.

¶133

4 . THE TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, ANEKAL - 562106.

¶134

5 . SRI. H J NAGESH S/O. LATE. JOGUPTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO. HULIMANGALA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105.

¶135

…RESPONDENTS

¶136

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

¶137

15 - NC: 2023:KHC:39610 WP No. 1215 of 2021 C/W WP NOS.1304 OF 2021 & 1924 OF 2021

¶138

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.10.2020 PASSED BY THE R-2/ SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-2, BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU DISTRICT AS FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶139

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶140

ORDER

¶141

1. In these Writ Petitions, common questions of fact are

¶142

required to be adjudicated. Accordingly, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the

¶143

matter was taken up for final disposal.

¶144

It is the case of the petitioners in W.P. No.1304/2021

¶145

that, order dated 08.10.2020 passed in RRT proceedings by the second respondent is contrary to law. It is the case of the petitioners in the said Writ Petition that the land in question was originally granted in favour of their father Joguttappa @ Doddajoguttappa and after his demise, the first petitioner herein has become khatedar of the said

¶146

16 -

¶147

NC: 2023:KHC:39610 WP No. 1215 of 2021 C/W

¶148

WP NOS.1304 OF 2021 & 1924 OF 2021

¶149

land. Hence the petitioners have questioned the order dated 08.10.2020 (Annexure-A) passed by the second respondent herein.

¶150

The petitioners in W.P. Nos.1215/2021 and 1924/2021 claim to be the purchasers of the land in question from the petitioner in W.P. No.1304/2021. Hence, these Writ Petitioners are challenging the order dated 08.10.2020 passed by the Spl. Deputy Commissioner-2, Bengaluru South Sub-Division, Bengaluru.

¶151

I have heard Sri. Badrinath R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. No.1304/2021, Sri. Vijaya Shekara Gowda V., learned counsel appearing

¶152

for the petitioners in W.P. Nos.1215/2021 and 1924/2021, Sri. Mohammed Jaffar Shah, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents in all these writ petitions.

¶153

17 -

¶154

NC: 2023:KHC:39610 WP No. 1215 of 2021 C/W

¶155

WP NOS.1304 OF 2021 & 1924 OF 2021

¶156

It is contended by Sri. Badrinath R., learned counsel that the land originally belongs to Joguttappa @ Doddajoguttappa, (the father of the petitioners in W.P. No.1304/2021) vide order dated 01.01.1941 and thereafter, after the death of the father of the petitioners, the petitioners are in possession of the land in question. Accordingly, the respondent No.2 at a later stage cannot cancel the grant made in favour of the petitioners, and hence, sought for interference of this Court. He also sought to rely upon the Judgment of this Court in W.P. No.46616/2017 disposed of on 09.10.2023 and urged that the respondent - authorities ought to have taken action within a reasonable period by exercising suo-motu power against the petitioners herein and accordingly, contended that, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶157

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate

¶158

sought to defend the order passed by the second respondent herein and submitted that since the petitioners

¶159

18 - NC: 2023:KHC:39610 WP No. 1215 of 2021 C/W WP NOS.1304 OF 2021 & 1924 OF 2021

¶160

have not produced the relevant certificate to establish that the land has been granted in favour of their father and no saguvali chit has been issued in so far as the land in question and accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the Writ Petitions.

¶161

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and on careful examination of the finding recorded by the second respondent would indicate that the property being granted in favour of the father of the petitioners in W.P. No.1304/2021 itself is disputed by the revenue authorities. It is also clarified by the second respondent that the petitioner has not produced the grant order under which the land had been granted in favour of the father of the petitioner, and in that view of the matter, taking into consideration the factual aspects that the petitioner before the second respondent has failed to establish legal right in so far as the land in question is concerned, and produced contemporary records to

¶162

19 -

¶163

NC: 2023:KHC:39610 WP No. 1215 of 2021 C/W WP NOS.1304 OF 2021 & 1924 OF 2021

¶164

establish the grant, I am of the view, that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the second respondent.

¶165

Further, in so far as the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the authorities taking action at such belated stage, I am of the view, that as the finding recorded by the revenue authorities that no grant has been made in so far as the father of the petitioner is concerned and therefore the petitioners herein have to establish their right with regard to the property in question and in this regard, the petitioners have failed to do so, and as such, I am of the view, that the observation made by this Court in W.P. No.46616/2017 cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in Writ Petition No.1304/2021.

¶166

I have also noticed the order dated 14.10.2011 passed by the Spl. Deputy Commissioner in case No. RRT(2)/CR/339/2008-09 wherein, in the said proceedings,

¶167

the Spl. Deputy Commissioner had taken a decision that

¶168

20 -

¶169

NC: 2023:KHC:39610 WP No. 1215 of 2021 C/W

¶170

WP NOS.1304 OF 2021 & 1924 OF 2021

¶171

there is no dispute with regard to grant made in favour of the father of the petitioner therein. A careful examination of the said order produced at Annexure-F1, would indicate that the Spl. Deputy Commissioner has not gone into the grant records and related contemporary registers and therefore, has arrived at the conclusion that the land has been granted in favour of the father of the petitioner. The

¶172

said finding has been arrived at by the Spl. Deputy Commissioner without looking into the original records pertaining to the grant. Therefore the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners in respect of the order at Annexure-F1 cannot be accepted.

¶173

Accordingly, Writ Petition No.1304/2021 is dismissed.

¶174

The petitioners in W.P. No.1215/2021 and

¶175

1924/2021 are the purchasers of the land from the petitioner in W.P. No.1304/2021, and W.P. No.1304/2021 having now been dismissed as devoid of merits, consequently, the writ petitions filed by the subsequent

¶176

21 -

¶177

NC: 2023:KHC:39610 WP No. 1215 of 2021 C/W

¶178

WP NOS.1304 OF 2021 & 1924 OF 2021

¶179

purchasers have no authority under law. Accordingly, both W.P. Nos.1215/2021 and 1924/2021 are

¶180

dismissed.

¶181

SD/JUDGE

¶182

sac*

Smt v. Shashikala v the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt v. Shashikala 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Executive Officer Vs State of Karnataka

Sh K B Munegowda Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt.Vanajakshi R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Konegowda Vs State of Karnataka

Smt B S Nagarathna Vs State of Karnataka

Siddagangaiah Vs the State of Karnataka