Disposed

Smt. Annamma Since Dead by Lrs v. Tahasildar

Karnataka HC28 Mar 2023WP/46034/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a tahasildar's order mutating respondents' names in revenue records following a regrant of lands to petitioners. The High Court held revenue authorities cannot adjudicate disputes regarding sale deed validity reserved for civil courts.

What did the court decide?

Order directed maintenance of status quo in revenue records pending outcome of pending civil suits. Jurisdictional court to adjudicate based on record material.

Smt. Annamma Since Dead by Lrs Vs Tahasildar — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 46034 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 46034 OF 2012 (KVOA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. ANNAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LRS 1(A). M. RAMAKRISHNAPPA, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,

¶9

AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶10

1(B). M. NARAYANASWAMY, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,

¶11

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.273, HORAMAVU AGARA, K.R. PURAM, BENGALURU-560 043.

¶12

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SMT. MUNIYAMMA, D/O LATE MUNIMARAPPA, W/O MUNICHINNAPPA, RESIDING AT HORAMAVU AGARA, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, PRESENTLY BENGALURU EAST TALUK, SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS

¶14

2(A) SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA @ RATHNAMMA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, W/O KRISHNAPPA M, RESIDING AT NO.274,

¶15

BEHIND MARAMMA TEMPLE, HENNUR BANDE, HENNUR-BAGLUR MAIN ROAD, KALYAN NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 043.

¶16

2(A)(A) SRI. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA,

¶17

¶18

WP No. 46034 of 2012

¶19

HUSBAND OF LATE RATHNAMMA@MUNIRATHNAMMA NO.274, HENNURBANDE, KALYANANGAR POST, BANGLORE NORTH, BANGALORE-560 044.

¶20

2(A)(B) SRI. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O KRISHNAPPA, NO.239, NEARGANGAMMA TEMPLE, HORAMAVUAGARA, HORAMAVU POST, K R PURAM, HOBLI, BANGALORE-43.

¶21

2(A)(C) SRI. GANGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O KRISHNAPPA, NO 274, HENNURBANDE, KALYAN NAGAR POST, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE-560 044.

¶22

2(A)(D) SMT ANJINAMMA,

¶23

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, D/O KRISHNAPPA, W/O. NAGARAJA, NO.19, 1ST MAIN OLD MADIWALA, BANGALORE SOUTH, BOMMANHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE-68.

¶24

2(A)(E) SMT. KANTHA,

¶25

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, D/O KRISHNAPPA, W/O MUNIRAJU, NO.26, 2ND CROSS, KULLAPPACIRCLE, KAMMANHALLI, ST. THOMAS TOWN POST, BANGALORE-560 084.

¶26

2(A)(F) SRI. VENKATESH,

¶27

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O KRISHNAPPA, NO.239, NEARGANGAMMA TEMPLE, HORAMAVUAGARA, HORAMAVU POST, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE-43.

¶28

3 - WP No. 46034 of 2012

¶29

2(A)(G) SRI. PAVAN KALYAN A, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, S/O LATE ANAND AND LATE DHANALAKSHMI, GRAND-SON OF KRISHNAPPA, NO.239, NEAR GANGAMMA TEMPLE, HORAMAVU AGARA, HORAMAVU POST, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE-43.

¶30

2(A)(H) SMT. NAGAVENI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, D/O KRISHNAPPA, W/O NAGARAJ, NO.554/44/1, BHUVANA NILAYA, 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS, JUSTICE BHIMAYYA LAYOUT, GOOD SHED ROAD, KR PURAM, BANGALORE-36.

¶31

2(A)(I) SRI. LAKSHMIPATHI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O KRISHNAPPA, NO.274, HENNURBANDE, KALYAN NAGAR POST, BANGLORE NORTH, BANGALORE-560 044.

¶32

2(A)(A) TO 2(A)(I) ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI. LOKESH N, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O M NARAYANASWAMY, RESIDING AT NO.11, KALPAVRUKSHANILAYA, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, KAMADENU STREET, NEW RAJANNA LAYOUT, HORAMAVU AGARA, HORAMAVU POST, K.R. PURAM, BENGALURU-560 043.

¶33

(AMENDED V/O DATED 17-11-2022)

¶34

2(B) SMT. CHINNAMMA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, W/O LATE GUNDAPPA, RESIDING AT NO. 272,

¶35

¶36

WP No. 46034 of 2012

¶37

NEAR GANGAMMA TEMPLE, HORAMAVU AGARA, HORAMAVU POST, BENGALURU-560 043.

¶38

(AMENDED V/O DATED 22-03-2021)

¶39

…PETITIONERS

¶40

(BY SRI. C M NAGABHUSHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶41

AND:

¶42

TAHASILDAR, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, K R PURAM, BENGALURU.

¶43

SRI SRIRAMAIAH, S/O LATE BACCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, RESIDING AT YAMLUR VILLAGE, YAMLUR POST, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

¶44

2(A) SRI PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O LATE SRIRAMAIAH.

¶45

2(B) SMT SHANTHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, D/O LATE SRIRAMAIAH.

¶46

2(C) SMT NAGAMMA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, D/O LATE SRIRAMAIAH.

¶47

2(D) SRI BHASKAR @ BABU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O LATE SRIRAMAIAH.

¶48

2(E) SMT BHARATHI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, D/O LATE SRIRAMAIAH, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF YAMLUR VILLAGE, YAMLUR POST, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 037.

¶49

5 - WP No. 46034 of 2012

¶50

SRI B VENKATARAMANAPPA, S/O LATE BACHHAPPA, MAJOR IN AGE, RESIDING AT YAMLUR VILLAGE, YAMLUR POST, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK.

¶51

SUBBARAYAPPA, S/O LATE PILLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT HORAMAVU AGARA, K R PURAM HOBLI,

¶52

BENGALURU-560 043. …RESPONDENTS

¶53

(BY SRI. BHOJEGOUDA J KOLLER, AGA FOR R1; SRI. UMESH B N, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3; R4, P'SD R2(A), P'SD R2(C), P'SD R2(D), P'SD R2(E) - SERVED; V/O DATED 30-08-2021 NOTICE TO R2(B)-H/S)

¶54

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17.9.2012 IN MA.NO.39/2011 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE TRUE COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXYRE-G AND ETC.

¶55

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

¶56

ORDER

¶57

The petitioners claims that they were re-granted the subject lands, and in pursuance of the same, their names were mutated in the revenue records. Thereafter, the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 claims to have purchased the subject lands from the petitioners vide registered sale deeds dated 20.05.1968 and 29.08.1966 and submitted an application with the Tahasildar concerned to mutate their names in the revenue records in respect of the subject lands in the year 2007.

¶58

¶59

WP No. 46034 of 2012

¶60

The Thasildhar concerned relying upon the decision of the full bench of this Court in the case of LAKSHMANA GOWDA v . STATE OF KARNATAKA , ILR 1980(2) KAR 892 , held that the regrant of subject lands enures to the benefit of respondents No.2 and 3, and accordingly mutated the names of respondents No.2 and 3 in the revenue records. Hence, this Petition.

¶61

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Tahasildar concerned could not have gone into the question whether the regrant order passed in favour of the petitioners No.1 and 2 enures to the benefit of respondents 2 and 3 in the revenue proceedings, hence mutating the names of the respondents No.2 and 3 in the revenue records is not sustainable in law.

¶62

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 submits that the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have purchased the subject lands from the petitioners and regrant order made in favour of the respondents 2 and 3 enures to the benefit of the said respondents and the Tahasildar concerned has rightly passed the impugned order and the same does not warrant any interference.

¶63

I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶64

¶65

WP No. 46034 of 2012

¶66

In a revenue proceedings, the Tahasildar concerned could not have gone into the question whether the regrant order was made in favour of the petitioners 1 and 2 enures to the benefit of the respondents No.2 and 3, having regard to the fact that the petitioners have disputed the validity of the sale deeds which is the subject matter in original suits in O.S.No.10215/2005 and 1019/2010.

¶67

The question whether the regrant order made in favour of the petitioners enures to the benefit of respondents No.2 and 3 is already ceased before the Civil Court and at this stage, the impugned order passed by the Tahasildar concerned directing to mutate the names of the respondents No.2 and 3 does not warrant any interference.

¶68

Therefore, this petition is disposed of directing the petitioners and respondents No.2 and 3 to maintain status quo with regard to entries in the revenue records in respect of the subject lands subject to outcome of the pending suits.

¶69

It is made clear that the jurisdictional court shall adjudicate the claim of the parties on available material on record without being influenced by the impugned order passed by the Tahasildar concerned.

¶70

All contentions are kept open.

¶71

Sd/JUDGE

¶72

Smt. Annamma Since Dead by Lrs v. Tahasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Annamma Since Dead by Lrs v. Tahasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R. Parvathamma Vs Chief Engineer

Sri. Chamundeswari Sugars Limited Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Sri. Chamundeswari Sugars Limited Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri K Krishna Raju

General Secretary Vs the Chief Traffic Manager

Sri H v Nagaraj Vs the Regional Transport Authority