Petitioner challenged a restoration order in PTC proceedings. Court held dispute is inter-se among legal heirs and remedy lies under Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Writ petition dismissed.
Writ petition dismissed with liberty to pursue remedy under Karnataka Land Revenue Act based on ex-parte decree.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2023:KHC:24410 WP No. 21338 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.21338 OF 2019 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
SMT.NARAYANAMMA W/O LATE C.VENKATARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.268/3, MAIN ROAD GANGONDANAHALLI LAKSHMIPURA POST DASANAPURA HOBLI-562 162 BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHARAPPA D R, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND:
NC: 2023:KHC:24410 WP No. 21338 of 2019
3. SMT SUSHEELAMMA W/O LATE MAHALINGAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS R.4 TO R.9 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF DECEASED R.3
THE RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 9 ARE R/AT GANGONDANAHALLI GRAMA DASANAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-562162 BENGALURU DISTRICT
NC: 2023:KHC:24410 WP No. 21338 of 2019
R/AT NO.2939/A 2ND MAIN ROAD MARIYAPPANAPALYA RAJAJINAGARA 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560 010
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1 & R2, SMT.LAKSHMI IYENGAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR MR.M.S.MUKKARAM, ADVOCATE FOR R.4 TO R.9; V/O/D 24.09.2021 - R.4 TO R.9 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF R.3; V/O/D 04.03.2022 - R.10 IS DELETED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.08.2018 MADE BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ANOTHER ORDER MADE BY HIM DATED 25.10.2018 IN CASE VIDE ANNEXURE-N AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This matter is de-linked from
W.P.No.23129/2019.
petitioner assailing the order of restoration passed by respondent No.1 - Assistant Commissioner.
NC: 2023:KHC:24410 WP No. 21338 of 2019
the hands of this Court is;
As to whether the petitioner, who is asserting that the grant made in favour of Mahalingappa was on behalf of the joint family and therefore, the petitioner's husband namely C.Venkataramaiah being full brother of Mahalingappa has also share in the granted land and is entitled to challenge the restoration proceedings, wherein the competent Authority has allowed the restitution petition filed by respondent Nos.3 to 9, who claimed to be legal representatives of the original grantee - Mahalingappa?
the petitioner is entitled to question the restoration order
on the strength of the exparte decree passed in O.S.No.238/2004. The dispute between the legal heirs of
the original grantee and the present petitioner herein is that the petitioner's husband namely C.Venkataramaiah who is the full brother of Mahalingappa had also a share in
the granted land. If the petitioner is asserting title over the granted land based on the exparte decree passed in
O.S.No.238/2004, her remedy is available under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Even otherwise, I would find that the restoration order would enure for the benefit of the petitioner also. Therefore, I
am unable to understand as to how the petitioner can question resumption order, which would also enure to the benefit of the petitioner, if she is able to demonstrate that her father had a share in the granted land along with original grantee - Mahalingappa.
based on an exparte decree and the inter-se dispute between the petitioners and the legal heirs of the original grantee cannot be adjudicated under the provisions of the "PTCL Act".
and no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
However, this order will not come in the way of
the petitioner in availing remedy available to her based on
the exparte decree.
Sd/JUDGE
NBM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, whose husband had a share in the granted land, is entitled to question the restoration order passed in Patta and Tenancy Consolidation (PTC) proceedings.
Whether the dispute between legal heirs and the petitioner can be adjudicated under the PTCL Act.
Whether the writ petition is devoid of merits and no relief can be granted.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O LATE C. VENKATARAMAIAH
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH
THE SPECIAL THAHASILDAR BENGALURU NORTH
SMT. SUSHEELAMMA W/O LATE MAHALINGAPPA LRS
SRI. JAYANNA
SRI. ANANTHA
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
