Petitioner challenged an order recording a contesting respondent's name in revenue records based on a sale deed, claiming prior government grant ownership. Court found no merit and dismissed the petition.
Writ petition dismissed as writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2023:KHC:38346 WP No. 8800 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 8800 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DANAPPA PRADHANAPPA PANIBHATE.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR M S Location: High Court of Karnataka
NC: 2023:KHC:38346 WP No. 8800 of 2021
K.R. PURAM, BANGALURU - 560 036.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH AGA.,FOR R1 TO R4, SRI.C.G. GOPALASWAMY ADVOCATE FOR R7)
THIS WP FILED UNDER SECTION 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH ORDER DATED 05.01.2021 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN RP NO.118/2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-Q AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the order
dated 05.01.2021 passed by respondent No.2 in Revision Petition No.118/2020 (Annexure-Q) inter alia sought for direction to the respondent authorities to consider the representation dated 19.08.2020 submitted by the petitioner as per Annexure-R in the writ petition.
has been granted to the petitioner as per order dated 31.08.1978 and accordingly, the mutation entry has been effected as per Annexure-A to the writ petition. It is further stated that as the subject land has been granted to the petitioner herein, the respondent authorities ought not to have, entered the name of the contesting respondent in the revenue records as the Land Tribunal, Bengaluru South Taluk has passed an order in LRF No.4079/1975-76 dated 19.10.1981 has declared that, one Meenakshamma
is owner in possession of the land in question and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court in this writ petition. Hence, this writ petition is filed.
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri C.G.Gopalaswamy learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.7 and Sri Mohammed Jaffar Shah learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
contended that as Smt.Meenakshamma was granted to an extent of 5 acres 32 guntas as per the order dated 19.10.1981 in LRF No.4079/1975-76 and during her life time, she has alienated the property in question and pursuant to the same, ultimately the finding recorded by respondent No.3 herein that the said land is not a government land and the entries in the revenue records as are existing cannot be held to be illegal and accordingly, he submitted that since the contesting respondent herein has made a claim with regard to the subject land based on the registered sale deed dated 25.11.2013 and accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
Mohammed Jaffar Shah argued that the impugned orders have been passed based on the registered sale deed and therefore, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
counsels appearing for the parties and taking into the
NC: 2023:KHC:38346 WP No. 8800 of 2021
consideration the factual aspects on record, that the petitioner herein claims right over the schedule property based on the order dated 31.08.1978, wherein the grant has been made in favour of Smt.Narayanamma W/o Late Hanumanthappa by the respondent-government in respect
of the subject land, and petitioner herein claims to be cultivating the subject land till today. However, the perusal of the writ papers would indicate that the petitioner herein has filed O.S.No.25588/2017 before the Civil Court, Bangalore in respect of the land in question. It is also forthcoming from the finding recorded by both the respondent-authorities that respondent No.3 herein has arrived at a conclusion that the subject land was never considered as a government land and accordingly, based on the absolute sale deed dated 25.11.2013 registered in book No.KRI-I-06109-2016-17 produced by the contesting respondent to change the revenue records in relation to the petition schedule property and in terms of Section 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, both the respondentauthorities have concluded that the name of the contesting
NC: 2023:KHC:38346 WP No. 8800 of 2021
respondent shall be entered in the revenue records. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and therefore, writ petition is liable to be dismissed as both the respondent-authorities have concurrently held that the entry has been made based on the registered sale deeds.
SD/JUDGE
CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revenue authorities were justified in recording the name of the contesting respondent based on a registered sale deed despite the petitioner's claim of ownership via a government grant.
Whether the writ petition seeking to quash the order recording the contesting respondent's name in revenue records deserves to be allowed.
Smt. Narayanamma
State of Karnataka
Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District
Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division
Tahasildar, Bengaluru East Taluk
Sri. R. Chandra
E.S. Indires
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
