Dismissed

Sri C L Nagaraje Gowda v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Nov 2023WP/54866/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court rejected a writ petition challenging revenue orders refusing to register the petitioner as owner. The Court held that prior civil suits only secured injunctions regarding possession, not title. Under Section 135 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the petitioner was rightly directed to institute a civil suit for declaratory relief to establish title against a grant certific

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with no interference in the impugned orders; petitioner directed to approach Civil Court for declaratory relief.

Sri C L Nagaraje Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:41639 WP No. 54866 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.54866 OF 2017 (KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. C.L. NAGARAJE GOWDA S/O PATEL LINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT CHIKKA KADALUR VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. V.B. SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA,

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HASSAN SUB DIVISION HASSAN.

¶16

C.N.CHANDRANARAYANAGOWDA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.

¶17

4a. SMT. B. NAGARATHNA W/O LATE C.N.CHNADRANARAYANA GOWDA

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:41639 WP No. 54866 of 2017

¶20

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶21

4b. SMT. C. SHASHIKALA D/O LATE C.N.CHANDRANARAYANA GOWDA W/O SRI. RAVISHANKAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶22

4c. SMT. C. JAMUNA D/O LATE C.N. CHANDRANARAYANA GOWDA W/O SRI. RAGHAVENDRA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

¶23

4d. SRI. C. GURUPRASAD S/O LATE C.N. CHANDRANARAYANA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶24

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.284, WARD NO.2, NEAR REMAND ROOM ADUVALLI MAIN ROAD ADUVALLI (CMC+OG) HASSAN-573 201.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. C.N. MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. A.P. PULAKESHI, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. B.S. LAKSHMISHA, ADVOCATE FOR R4(a) TO r-4(d))

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.6.2007 AND THE ORDER DTED 19.6.2017 ORDERING REVERSING THE LAND BY ENTRY IN R.P.17/2006-07 DATED 19.11.2007 AT ANNEXURE-B, A AND E AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE AND ORDER DIRECTING THE RESTORATION OF THE ENTRY IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE REVENUE RECORDS.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:41639 WP No. 54866 of 2017

¶30

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the Order dated 28.06.2007 (Annexure-B) passed by the Tahsildar, Hassan Taluk and Endorsement dated 19.06.2017 (Annexure-A) passed by respondent No.2 rejecting the claim made by the petitioner to confirm the grant as contended by the petitioner.

¶33

The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition as contended by the petitioner that, the property in question to an extent of 10½ guntas in Sy. No.162 of Chikkakadaluru Village, Dudda Hobli, Hassan Taluk belongs to the petitioner and the petitioner's father - Patel Nanjegowda had purchased the same in auction bid on 16.02.1950. It is the case of the petitioner that in order to establish title in respect of the land in question, the petitioner has produced the tax paid receipts. It is further contended in the writ petition that one C.N. Krishnegowda

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:41639 WP No. 54866 of 2017

¶36

was interfering with the lawful possession of the petitioner's land in question and in this regard, petitioner has filed O.S. 235/1994 and the said suit came to be decreed as per Annexure-M to the writ petition. Thereafter respondent No.4 herein has interfered with the possession of the land in question and again the petitioner was constrained to file O.S. 267/2012 before the Civil Court and the said suit also came to be decreed by the competent authority. At para 4 of the writ petition, petitioner has stated that the total extent of property is East to West 122 ft. and North to South 90 ft. with boundaries that is mentioned in the schedule to the writ petition. The fourth respondent being aggrieved, preferred in Misc. Appeal No. 53/2013 before the Principal District Judge at Hassan and the said petition was dismissed on 13.11.2013.

¶37

It is the case of the petitioner that, petitioner is the owner in possession of the land to an extent of 10½ guntas in Sy. No.162 of Chikkakadaluru Village, Hassan

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:41639 WP No. 54866 of 2017

¶40

Taluk and accordingly, being aggrieved by the Orders of the Tahsildar, Hassan Taluk at Annexure-B which came to be confirmed by second respondent herein as per Annexure-A, has presented this writ petition.

¶41

I have heard Sri. V.B. Shivakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. C.N. Mahadeshwaran, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri. A.P. Pulakeshi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. B.S. Lakshmisha, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4(a) to 4(d).

¶42

Sri. V.B. Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S. 235/1994 as per Annexure-M to the writ petition and contended that, the competent Court has given a finding with regard to establishing his right over the property in question to an extent of 10½ guntas in in Sy. No.162 of Chikkakadaluru Village, Hassan Taluk. He also invited the attention of the Court to the written statement filed in subsequent suit in

¶43

¶44

NC: 2023:KHC:41639 WP No. 54866 of 2017

¶45

O.S. No.267/2012, in respect of the very same subject matter.

¶46

It is the categorical submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that, though the title to the property has been established by the Civil Court in the aforementioned suits, yet the said aspect has not been considered by the respondent - authorities in so far as incorporating the name of the petitioner in the mutation register and as such, sought for interference of the Court. Further, he also referred to Section 135 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and submitted that as the petitioner has already established his right in the aforementioned civil suits and in that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the second respondent herein relegating the petitioner to establish his right is incorrect and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.

¶47

Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4(a) to 4(d) invited the attention of the Court to Annexure-R1 - Grant Certificate

¶48

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:41639 WP No. 54866 of 2017

¶49

issued by the competent authority in favour of respondent No.4 in so far as 10 ½ guntas of land in Sy. No.162 of Chikkakadaluru Village, Hassan Taluk is concerned and argued that the petitioner has not established the right over the property in question as the suit referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner is pertaining to injunctive relief and therefore sought to justify the impugned order.

¶50

Learned Senior Counsel further contended that, as the petitioner has failed to establish his right over the land in question, and therefore, the authorities are justified in directing the petitioner to establish his right. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as the order impugned at Annexure-B is passed on 28.06.2007 and thereafter endorsement has been issued on 19.06.2017. Accordingly, the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

¶51

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:41639 WP No. 54866 of 2017

¶52

Learned Additional Government Advocate sought to justify the action of the respondents in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶53

On careful examination of suits referred to by the petitioner herein, would indicate that the petitioner is seeking relief of permanent injunction against the defendants therein. In the said suits, the entire discussion being made by the Trial Court is only with regard to possession of the land in question based on the tax paid receipts and the khata extracts issued by the Panchayat. In that view of the matter, on careful examination of the schedule mentioned in the suit which demostrates that the petitioner is the owner in possession of the land to an extent of East to West 40 meters and North to South 32 meters. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration that the contesting respondent herein is seeking right over the property in question in terms of the

¶54

grant certificate produced at Annexure-R1, I am of the view that respondent - authorities have rightly relegated

¶55

¶56

NC: 2023:KHC:41639 WP No. 54866 of 2017

¶57

the petitioner to establish his right over the property in question to an extent of 10½ guntas in Sy. No.162 of Chikkakadaluru Village, Hassan Taluk. Accordingly, petitioner has not made out a case for interference in this matter.

¶58

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner refers

¶59

to Section 135 of the Act, the proviso to Section 135 makes it clear that if any person is aggrieved as to any right based on the possession and an entry has been made in the revenue records and same is disputed, when such being the case, the aggrieved party shall institute a case against such person denying or interested to deny the title in the property in question. As the petitioner has challenged the right of the contesting respondent in respect of the property in question, referring to the grant certificate produced at Annexure-R1, and therefore I am of the view, that there is no infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the respondents.

¶60

10 -

¶61

NC: 2023:KHC:41639 WP No. 54866 of 2017

¶62

Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by

¶63

the learned counsel for the parties, needless to say that if the petitioner files a suit seeking declaratory relief against the respondents herein, if so advised, the Civil Court shall decide the matter on merits. Accordingly, petitioner has

¶64

not made out a case for interference of this Court.

¶65

Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of

¶66

the observations made as above.

¶67

SD/JUDGE

¶68

sac

¶69

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57

Sri C L Nagaraje Gowda v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri C L Nagaraje Gowda 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

Smt Gangamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri S Karunakar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivakumarappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt Rudramma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Hanumanthappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt Chandrakantamma Vs Deputy Commissioner