Dismissed

Sri Nagendra Setty v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2023WP/5166/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This letter of appeal in writ petition No. 5166 of 2022 addressed a dispute regarding mutation entries and survey numbers. The petitioner challenged revenue orders alleged to contain errors regarding land ownership. The High Court found that disputed questions of fact regarding title were involved and dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to file a suit in the Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed and the petitioner was directed to file a suit in the competent Civil Court.

Sri Nagendra Setty Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:40035 WP NO.5166 OF 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 08^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.5166 OF 2022 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. NAGENDRA SETTY S/O N.R.L. SETTY AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.5, SAI NIVAS, APPAJAPPA AGRAHARA, CHAMARAJAPET, BENGALURU - 560 018.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NARAYANA V.S., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU.

¶12

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

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU.

¶14

TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL.

¶15

SRI. KAVERAPPA S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT HEELALIGE VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, CHANDAPURA POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 106.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:40035 WP NO.5166 OF 2022

¶18

(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. PUNITH C., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DATED 28^TH JULY, 2016 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2-ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVSION, BENGALURU IN R.A.(A)NO.168/2010-11 VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND ORDER DATED 02^ND NOVEMBER, 2021 PASSED IN REVISION PETITION NO.566 OF 2017-18 ON THE FILE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-L AND TO RESTORE THE ENTRY AS IT STOOD IN M.R.NO.4/95-96 ON THE FILE OF THE TAHASILDAR, ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL AS REGARDS LAND BEARING SURVEY NO.33/1 MEASURING 1 ACRE 10 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT ANDAPURA VILLAGE, ANEKAL TALUK, ATTIBELE HOBLI, BENGALURU DISTRICT; AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing order dated 28^th July, 2016 (Annexure-K) passed by the respondent No.2 in R.A.(A) No.168/2010-11 and order dated 02^nd November, 2021 (Annexure-L) passed by the respondent No.1; inter-alia sought for restoration of entry as it stood in M.R. No.4/95-96 in respect of the subject land situate at Andapura Village, Anekal Taluk, Attibele Hobli, Bengaluru District.

¶23

It is the case of the petitioner that the land bearing Survey No.32/2 measuring to an extent of 1 acre 1 gunta and

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:40035 WP NO.5166 OF 2022

¶25

Survey No.33/3 measuring to an extent of 16 guntas situate at Andapura Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal, Bengaluru District are originally belongs to one Bola s/o late Putta, who has sold property in favour of one Krishnappa as per registered Sale Deed dated 27^th February, 1953 (Annexure-A). The said Krishnappa @ Peddanna in turn sold the aforementioned property as per registered Sale Deed dated 20^th November, 1994 (Annexure-B) in favour of the petitioner. The Khata in respect of the aforesaid properties were changed as per the mutation entries produced at Annexures 'C' and 'D' respectively. Thereafter, the land was converted for nonagricultural purpose as per Annexure-E. However, on account of typographical error crept in respect of the survey number

¶26

that, instead of mentioning land bearing Survey No.32/2 measuring 1 acre 1 gunta, land bearing Survey No.33/2 measuring 16 guntas and land bearing Survey No.33/1 measuring 1 acre 10 guntas, it had been mentioned as Survey No.33/2 measuring 1 acre 1 gunta, land bearing Survey No.33/3 measuring 16 guntas and land bearing Survey No.32/3 measuring 1 acre 10 guntas in the Sale Deed and as such, registered Rectification-cum-Confirmation Deed dated 27^th

¶27

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:40035 WP NO.5166 OF 2022

¶28

February, 2012 (Annexure-F) was made. It is the grievance of the petitioner that, Mutation in respect of Survey No.32/3 insofar as the M.R. No.4/95-96 is the subject matter before the competent authority and both the authorities, without considering the factual aspects on record and the Rectificationcum-Confirmation Deed mentioned therein, have passed impugned orders produced at Annexures 'K' and 'L'. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner presented this writ petition.

¶29

Heard Sri. Narayana V.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri. Harisha A.S., learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3; and Sri. Punith C., learned counsel on behalf of Sri. K. Venkatesh, appearing for Caveator/respondent No.4.

¶30

Sri. Narayana V.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, in view of the patent error made in mentioning the Survey Numbers in the Sale Deed, the impugned orders have been passed by the respondentAuthorities, which requires to be interfered with in this writ petition. He also referred to the Rectification-cum-Confirmation

¶31

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:40035 WP NO.5166 OF 2022

¶32

Deed made by the parties in respect of Survey No.32/3 as per Annexure-F and submitted that, both the authorities have not considered the same. In this regard, he places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of SRI. ANNA RAO AND OTHERS vs. SRI. GUNDAREDDY AND OTHERS reported in

¶33

ILR 1997 KAR 1998 and argued that the respondent-Authorities cannot change the entry after two decades. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court.

¶34

Per contra, Sri. Punith C., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 invited the attention of Court to Sale Deeds produced at Annexures 'A' and 'B' respectively and submitted that, one Chikkamuniga s/o Puttamuniga, the great grandfather of the respondent No.4 was the owner in possession of land bearing Survey No.33/1 measuring 1 acre 10 guntas situate at Andapur Village, Anekal Taluk and the said property was not the subject matter in the aforementioned Sale Deeds. Accordingly, he sought to justify the impugned orders passed by the respondent-Authorities.

¶35

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:40035 WP NO.5166 OF 2022

¶36

Sri. Harisha A.S., learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3 sought to justify the action of the respondent-Authorities.

¶37

In light of submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful examination of order dated 28^th July, 2016 (Annexure-K) passed by the respondent No.2, wherein it is indicated that, as per the statement made by the petitioner, there is a discrepancy in respect of mentioning of survey number in the Sale Deed and the said aspect also been considered by the respondent No.2. Therefore, it is the case of the respondent No.4 that, as per the Sale Deed dated 20^th November, 1994 (Annexure-B), the land bearing Survey No.33/1 was not the subject matter in the Sale Deed. In that view of the matter, as the disputed question of facts are involved in respect of the title of the property in question, I am of the view that, it is convenient for the petitioner to establish his right over the properties before the competent Civil Court. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:40035 WP NO.5166 OF 2022

¶40

Due to dismissal of the this writ petition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will file a suit before the competent Civil Court within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Hence, Interim order granted by this Court on 08^th March, 2022, shall continue till the filing of suit by the petitioner.

¶41

SD/JUDGE

¶42

ARK

Sri Nagendra Setty v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Nagendra Setty v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt v Shashikala Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Konegowda Vs State of Karnataka

Smt B S Nagarathna Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Moosa Beary Vs the Competent Authority and

Sri Siddappa Vs the Chief Secretary

Sri. R Vijayakumar Vs State of Karnataka