Disposed

Sri.Honnegowda v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Mar 2023WP/3001/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an interim order prohibiting land transactions. The Court held the petition was not maintainable as petitioners, who claimed interest in the land, were not parties to the revenue proceedings and could seek impleadment via the Deputy Commissioner.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; petitioners directed to approach Deputy Commissioner for impleadment to vacate interim order.

Sri.Honnegowda Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 3001 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 3001 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.HONNEGOWDA S/O GIRIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS NO.68, MARATIKYATANAHALLI JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK-570026.

¶9

SRI BYREGOWDA S/O SANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS

¶10

SRI BASAVEGOWDA S/O SANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

¶11

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O PUTTEGOWDA (DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF SANNEGOWDA) AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶12

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SRI MALLEGOWDA S/O SANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS

¶14

PETITIONERS NO.2 TO 5 ARE R/O BOGADI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK-570026.

¶15

SRI S S MADHU S/O SHIVALINGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O NO 2884, 2^ND PHASE 4^TH STAGE, VIJAYANAGARA MYSURU-570032.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI VIJAY A M, ADV.)

¶18

¶19

WP No. 3001 of 2023

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M S BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

¶22

BENGALURU- 560001.

¶23

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT MYSURU-570001.

¶24

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MYSURU SUB-DIVISION, MYSURU -570001.

¶25

THE TAHSILDAR MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU-570001.

¶26

SRI N B MAHESH BALLAL S/O N R BOJARAJA BALLAL MAJOR, NO 1243, 1^ST CROSS KRISHNAMURTHYPURAM MYSURU-570001.

¶27

SRI KEMPEGOWDA S/O CHIKKAHYDEGOWDA MAJOR

¶28

SMT. CHANNAMMA W/O LATE MADEGOWDA MAJOR

¶29

SMT. MAHADEVAMMA W/O LATE NANJAPPA D/O LATE MADEGOWDA@ KARIYAPPA MAJOR

¶30

SMT. PARVATHI W/O SRINIVASA D/O LATE MADEGOWDA @ KARIYAPPA MAJOR

¶31

SRI MAHADEVA S/O LATE SOMAYYA MAJOR

¶32

¶33

WP No. 3001 of 2023

¶34

SRI KRISHNA S/O LATE SOMAYYA MAJOR

¶35

SMT. RUKMINI W/O LATE SOMAYYA, MAJOR

¶36

SRI SURESH S/O LATE MADEGOWDA @ KARIYAPPA, MAJOR

¶37

RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 13 ARE R/O NO 2440, 4^TH CROSS VINAYAKA NAGARA PADUVARAHALLI, MYSURU-570006.

¶38

SRI MARIGOWDA S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA MAJOR, R/O BOGADI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK-570026.

¶39

SMT. PAPAMMA W/O LATE SHANIMALAI GOUNDER MAJOR, EWS-10, GANGOTRI LAYOUT CHAMARAJA MOHALLA MYSURU-571313.

¶40

…RESPONDENTS

¶41

(BY SRI C.N.MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR 1-4)

¶42

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.01.2023 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN RP NO.11/2022-23 VIDE ANNX-A AND DIRECT TO THE R-2 TO CONTINUE THE PROCEEDINGS IN RP NO.11/2023 FOR ADJUDICATION OF INTER-SE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE R-5 TO 15 WITHOUT TOUCHING UPON THE LAND BELONGING TO THE PETITIONERS IN ERSTWHILE SY.NO.87/1 (I.E., NEW SY.NO.87/8 MEASURING 27 GUNTAS AND ALSO 1 ACRE IN NEW SY.NO.87/9) AND ERSTWHILE SY.NO.87/2 (I.E., 7 GUNTAS IN NEW SY.NO.87/2, 19 GUNTAS IN NEW SY.NO.87/5 AND 27 GUNTAS IN NEW SY.NO.87/6).

¶43

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

¶44

¶45

WP No. 3001 of 2023

¶46

ORDER

¶47

Though the matter is listed for Preliminary Hearing, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶48

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Vijay.A.M., for petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.C.N.Mahadeshwaran, who has taken notice for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Perused the writ petition papers.

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioners are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the correctness and legality of interim order dated 13.01.2023 at Annexure-A wherein second respondent-Deputy Commissioner passed interim order prohibiting any transaction in respect of the lands in question i.e., Sy.No.87/1 to an extent of 3 acre 27 guntas, Sy.No.87/2 to an extent of 0.07 guntas, Sy.No.87/4 to an extent of 0.39 guntas, Sy.No.87/5 to an extent of 19 guntas, Sy.No.87/6 to an extent of 0.27 guntas, Sy.No.87/8 to an extent of 0.27 guntas and

¶50

¶51

WP No. 3001 of 2023

¶52

Sy.No.87/9 to an extent of 1 acre, all situated at Bogadi Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk.

¶53

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioners are not parties to the proceedings and without making the petitioners parties and without hearing the petitioners, Deputy Commissioner passed impugned order which would affect the rights and interest of the petitioners in the lands in question.

¶54

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that petitioners rushed to this Court without making any application before the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner to implead themselves and to seek vacating of the interim order, bringing to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner how the order would affect the petitioners. Therefore, he submits that writ petition be dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Deputy Commissioner.

¶55

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶56

and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the

¶57

¶58

WP No. 3001 of 2023

¶59

view that at this stage, challenging the interim order at Annexure-A dated 13.01.2023 would not be maintainable.

¶60

Annexure-A, order of the Deputy Commissioner

¶61

dated 13.01.2023 prohibits any transaction in respect of the lands involved in the R.P.No.11/2023. If the petitioners are aggrieved of the order passed by Deputy Commissioner and if they are not parties, it would be open for the petitioners to get themselves impleaded and seek for vacating the interim order, bringing to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner how the order would affect them and why they are necessary parties to the proceedings. If such applications are filed, the Deputy Commissioner to consider the same and dispose of those applications expeditiously.

¶62

With the above, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶63

Sd/JUDGE

¶64

NC CT:bms: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Sri.Honnegowda v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Honnegowda 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sobha Assets Private Limited Vs Special Agricultural Produce Market Committe for Fruits, Flowers and Vegetables

Smt. Padamakshi Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Jayamma Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Francis Samraj. S Vs the State of Karnataka

Nanjundegowda Vs Chief Secretary

Smt Radhamma Vs the State of Karnataka