Allowed

Sri v. Gopalakrishna v the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Nov 2023WP/44929/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition assailing an order that dropped revenue proceedings. The court set aside the impugned order, remitted the matter for rehearing, and restored revenue entries in the petitioners' name, directing that both parties be heard and titles properly established.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 15.12.2015 set aside; matter remitted to respondent No.2 for rehearing; revenue entries restored in petitioners' name pending outcome.

Sri v Gopalakrishna Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:40918 WP NO.44929 OF 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.44929 OF 2016 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. V. GOPALAKRISHNA SINCE DEAD REP.BY LR'S.

¶8

1(a). SMT. B.N. NAGARATHNA W/O LATE V. GOPALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶9

1(b). SRI. YATHISH KUMAR G. S/O LATE V. GOPALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS.

¶10

1(c). KUM. MOOKAMBIKAR G. D/O LATE V. GOPALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS (MINOR)

¶11

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

¶12

PETITIONERS 1(a) TO 1(c) ARE RESIDING AT NO.182/1 NEAR BUS STAND, DODDA TUMKUR, BENGALURU RURAL - 561 203.

¶13

SMT. LAKSHMI W/O LATE ANANDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT JAYANTHINAGAR, HORAMAVU POST, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 043.

¶14

SRI. SRIDHAR S/O LATE DEVARAJ AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶15

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:40918 WP NO.44929 OF 2016

¶16

RESIDING AT NO.5/55, C/O BADIGAPPA LANE OLD POLICE STATION ROAD, KADIGONDANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 045.

¶17

SRI. KESHAVA MURTHY S/O LATE SHAKERAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT HUTTANAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK - 560 001.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. DEVARAJ G., ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

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

¶22

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISON, BENGALURU DISTRICT BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶23

THE THASILDAR BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL.) TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560 028.

¶24

SRI. J. PRITHVIRAJ REDDY S/O J. SREERAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT PENT HOUSE, LAW PALUMA APARTMENT, NEAR KAMAN, ROAD NO.12 BANJARA HILLS, HYDREABAD - 560 034.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:40918 WP NO.44929 OF 2016

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. P.M. NARAYANASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15^TH DECEMBER, 2015 PASSED IN R.R.T(2)NA/CR/100/2008-2009 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AT ANNEXURE-A AS NULL AND VOIDGRANT AN INTERIM RODER TO STAY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD15.12.2015 PASSED IN R.R.T/(2)NA/CR/100/2008-09 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC.

¶30

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

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

In this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing the order dated 15^th December, 2015 passed by the respondent No.2 (Annexure-A), wherein the proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act') are dropped.

¶33

It is the case of the petitioners that, late Chikkamuniswamy, grandfather of the petitioners, was the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the land bearing Survey No.73 (New No.73/P-11) measuring 3 acres of situate at Huttanahalli Village, Bengaluru North Taluk. It is the

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:40918 WP NO.44929 OF 2016

¶36

stated in the writ petition that the aforementioned land was granted to the grandfather of the petitioners and same was confirmed as per Grant Certificate Dated 30^th March, 1965 (Annexure-B). It is also stated that the name of the grandfather of the petitioners find place in the official Memorandum dated 30^th March, 1965 (Annexure-C) and all the revenue records stands in the name of the grandfather of the petitioners as per Annexures 'D' and 'E'. After the demise of the grandfather of the petitioners, the father of the petitioners approached the revenue authorities seeking change of name in the revenue records and came to know that the land has been shown as Government Land as per Annexure-F series. On verification of the records by the father of the petitioners, he came to know that the respondent No.4 made a claim in respect of the land in question and RTC extracts stands in the name of the respondent No.4. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners have approached the respondent-Authorities, resulting in issuance of the impugned order dated 15^th December, 2015 (Annexure-A) by the respondent No.2. Hence, this writ petition.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:40918 WP NO.44929 OF 2016

¶39

Heard Sri. Devaraj G., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Sri. Harisha A.S., learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3; and Sri. P.M. Narayanaswamy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4.

¶40

Sri. Devaraj G., learned counsel appearing for petitioners contended that the order impugned is passed without hearing to the petitioners and without looking into the relevant documents. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court.

¶41

Per contra, Sri. P.M. Narayanaswamy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 sought to justify the impugned order on the ground that the Thasildar has issued letter dated 06^th November, 2013 to the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District to confirm the grant of the subject land in favour of Munishami @ Muddappa, the original grantee and therefore, contended that the finding recorded by the respondent No.2 is just and proper and the proceedings have been rightly dropped thereunder.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2023:KHC:40918 WP NO.44929 OF 2016

¶44

Sri. Harisha A.S., learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3 sought to justify the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2.

¶45

In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the respondent No.2 has initiated proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Act based on the letter dated 20^th June, 2014 addressed by the Thasildar, Bengaluru North (Additional). It is the finding recorded that, the respondent No.3 has addressed letter dated 29^th November 2008 to the Assistant commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division to build the missing records in respect of the subject land. It is the case of the petitioners that the land in question has been granted to Chikkamuniswamy as per Grant Certificate dated 30^th March, 1965 (Annexure-B). The said aspect is supported by the confirmation order dated 30^th March, 1965 (Annexure-C). If such being the case, if at all, there is a discrepancy in respect of the name of the grantees as alleged by the contesting respondent No.4 herein, it was open for the respondent No.2, to direct the contesting respondent No.4 herein, to establish his right over the property in question. In that view of the matter,

¶46

¶47

NC: 2023:KHC:40918 WP NO.44929 OF 2016

¶48

order dated 15^th December, 2015 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.2 is incorrect and contrary to the records. That apart, the respondent No.2 has not considered the documents produced by the petitioners to substantiate their claim in the property in question. Be that as it may be, the respondent No.2 has opined that original grant file is not available. In the backdrop of the said aspect, the respondent No.2, ought to have directed the contesting respondent No.4 herein to establish his right over the property in question by producing the relevant documents to establish that the land has been granted to his ancestors. In that view of the matter, I pass the following:

¶49

O R D E R

¶50

1. writ petition allowed;

¶51

1. Order dated 15^th December, 2015 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.2 in R.R.T/(2)NA/CR/100/2008-09 is set-aside and matter is remitted to the respondent No.2 herein with a direction to consider the case afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the contesting respondent No.4 and pass appropriate orders with cogent reasons by looking into the available documents on record;

¶52

¶53

NC: 2023:KHC:40918 WP NO.44929 OF 2016

¶54

1. Till the consideration of the claim made by the contesting respondent No.4 as mentioned above, the revenue entries shall be restored into the name of the petitioners herein.

¶55

SD/JUDGE

¶56

ARK

Sri v. Gopalakrishna v the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri v. Gopalakrishna 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

L Basavaraju Vs N Lingaiah

Sri K P Rajesh Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Jayaram Hegde Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Sanjeev Kumar Jain Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri v Sidda Murthy Vs the Chief Secretary

Sri. T.B.A. Rehman Vs State of Karnataka