Dismissed

The State of Karnataka v. Narayanappa

Karnataka HC31 Oct 2023WP/29052/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice E.S. Indires dismissed two writ petitions filed by the State challenging an order dated 28.03.2018 under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Relying on this Court's own prior decision, the judge held that the substantial delay in exercising suo motu revisional jurisdiction prevented the State from unsettling the long-standing entries benefiting the respondents.

What did the court decide?

The High Court (Special Judge) dismissed the writ petitions filed by the State of Karnataka against the order dated 28.03.2018 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner.

The State of Karnataka Vs Narayanappa — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:38517 WP NO.29052 OF 2019 C/W

¶3

WP NO.29051 OF 2019

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.29052 OF 2019(KLR-RR/SUR)

¶8

C/W

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.29051 OF 2019

¶10

IN WP NO.29052 OF 2019

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU -560 001.

¶13

THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA)

¶16

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

¶17

AND:

¶18

NARAYANAPPA S/O MARIYAPPA.

¶19

RAMANANI W/O CHANDRAPPA.

¶20

DEVARAJ BAJAJ S/O CHANDALAL BAJAJ.

¶21

RAFIBAIG S/O LATE AMEER BAIG.

¶22

SUSHILA W/O NAVARATHAN MAL.

¶23

¶24

NC: 2023:KHC:38517 WP NO.29052 OF 2019

¶25

C/W WP NO.29051 OF 2019

¶26

M. SRINIVAS S/O LATE D.M. MUNIRAJAPPA.

¶27

M. NAGARAJ S/O LATE D.M. MUNIRAJAPPA.

¶28

A. JANARDHAN S/O A. GANGAIAH.

¶29

RESPONDENTS 1 TO 8 ARE R/AT HOMMADEVANAHALLI VILLAGE, BEGURU HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.

¶30

SMT. KANTHA W/O MUNISWAMY NO.1, 2^ND MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, BRINDAVANA NAGAR, CHIKKA ADUGODI EXTENSION, TAVAREKERE MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 029.

¶31

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-2 BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU.

¶32

SRI. SRINIVASA MURTHY S/O SRI. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT NO.53/F, 100 FEET ROAD, NEW MEENAKSHI TEMPLE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶33

SMT. LAKSHMI RAMASWAMY W/O LATE K.G. RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.009, GROUND FLOOR, BLOCK E, NANDI CITADEL, CHANDRASHEKERA PURA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI,

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:38517 WP NO.29052 OF 2019 C/W WP NO.29051 OF 2019

¶36

BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶37

…RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI. PRADEEP NAIK K., ADVOCATE FOR R11; SRI. C.M. NAGABHUSHAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.S. UDAY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R6; SRI. T.M. CHOWDAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R9; SRI. NISHANTH A.V., ADVOCATE FOR R8; SRI. AMIT XAVIER C., ADVOCATE FOR R12; R2, R7 AND R10 SERVED)

¶39

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SETASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28^TH MARCH, 2018 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.10-SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-2, BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT VIDE ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC.

¶40

IN WP NO.29051 OF 2019

¶41

BETWEEN:

¶42

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU -560 001.

¶43

THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU.

¶44

…PETITIONERS

¶45

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA)

¶46

AND:

¶47

VENKATAMMA SINCE DEAD, REP. BY LR'S.

¶48

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:38517 WP NO.29052 OF 2019

¶49

C/W WP NO.29051 OF 2019

¶50

1(a). SRI. NAGARAJU S/O LATE D.M. MUNIRAJAPPA.

¶51

1(b). SRI. THYAGARAJU S/O LATE D.M. MUNIRAJAPPA.

¶52

1(c). SRI. RAJUGOPAL S/O LATE D.M. MUNIRAJAPPA.

¶53

1(d). SRI. M. SRINIVAS S/O LATE D.M. MUNIRAJAPPA.

¶54

1(e). SRI. MARISWAMY S/O LATE D.M. MUNIRAJAPPA.

¶55

RESPONDENTS 1(a) to 1(e) ARE R/AT HOMMADEVANAHALLI VILLAGE, BEGURU HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK - 560 068.

¶56

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-2 BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION BENGLAURU-560 009.

¶57

…RESPONDENTS

¶58

(BY SRI. C.M. NAGABHUSHAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.S. UDAY, ADVOCATE FOR R1(a) TO R1(e) R2 - SERVED)

¶59

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SETASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28^TH MARCH, 2018 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2-SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-2, BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT VIDE ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC.

¶60

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

¶61

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:38517 WP NO.29052 OF 2019 C/W

¶62

WP NO.29051 OF 2019

¶63

O R D E R

¶64

These writ petitions are preferred by the State challenging the order dated 28^th March, 2018 (Annexure-A) passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner-2, Bengaluru South Sub-Division, Bengaluru Urban District in RRT proceedings.

¶65

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶66

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and taking into consideration the preliminary submission made by learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that this Court in Writ Petition No.44616 of 2017 filed by the petitioner-State in respect of Suo-moto revisional powers exercised by the competent authority under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act disposed of on 09^th October, 2023, had arrived at a conclusion that the petitionerState has not made out a case for interference in the said case. Accordingly, he submitted that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the said writ petition is squarely applicable to the facts on record.

¶67

¶68

NC: 2023:KHC:38517 WP NO.29052 OF 2019 C/W

¶69

WP NO.29051 OF 2019

¶70

In the guise of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 and learned Additional Government Advocate, I have carefully examined the order dated 12^th October, 2023 passed by this Court. Undisputably, the petitioners have challenged order dated 28^th March, 2018 (Annexure-A) in the present writ petitions, urging that there is an element of fraud in suppression of the facts before the competent authority, resulting in passing of the impugned order. However, taking into consideration the observation made by this Court in the aforementioned writ petition as well as the grounds urged in the present writ petitions, I am of the view that the delay in exercising the power by the competent authority while exercising the Suo-moto jurisdiction under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka land Revenue Act would unsettle the entries, which is evident in the records that, it is continuously stands in the name of the respondents. In that view of the matter, it is relevant to deduce the Paragraphs 11 to 14 in the said writ petition, which read as under:

¶71

"11. When the Deputy Commissioner taking note of the order of Tahsildar has initiated proceedings and after enquiry has found in favour of the respondent NO.1 herein and closed the proceedings, the said order is not open to challenge by Officers in the Departmental

¶72

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:38517 WP NO.29052 OF 2019

¶73

C/W WP NO.29051 OF 2019

¶74

hierarchy unless a clear case of mala fides is alleged and also made out against the concerned Deputy Commissioner.

¶75

12. It cannot be stated that the State itself could be an aggrieved party when order is passed in favour of the private party after enquiry and affirming the correctness of the documents maintained by the State and consequently private person is benefited by such order.

¶76

13. It is settled position of law that where no time is prescribed for exercise of suo motu revisionary powers, the same must be exercised within a reasonable period of time and is impermissible otherwise.

¶77

14. Even where fraud is alleged, delay would defeat the action of State to unsettle entries in long continuance especially where rights of third parties are created in the intervening period of inaction by the State"

¶78

Following the law declared by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, I am of the view that, no interference is called for in this writ petition. Accordingly, writ petitions are dismissed.

¶79

SD/JUDGE

¶80

ARK

The State of Karnataka v. Narayanappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Narayanappa

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

Sri N S Maligappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.C. Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Avalappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Kumara Raja S Vs Thasildar

Sri. Mohan Vs the State of Karnataka

Bhandarkar'S Arts and Science College Trust Vs State of Karnataka