High Court denied mutation to multiple claimants relying on alleged defective grants or sale chains but allowed one petition where a valid Land Tribunal order existed, directing mutation.
Writ petition No.9179 of 2020 allowed; directions for mutation in favour of K.R. Sudhir and A.Mahaboob Pasha. Other writ petitions 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION No.9482 OF 2020 [KLR – RES]
Connected with
WRIT PETITION Nos.9179/2020, 9196/2020, 9203/2020, 9275/2020, 9502/2020, 9529/2020, 14796/2020, 10434/2021 [KLR – RES]
In WP No.9482 OF 2020:
BETWEEN
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.69, NAGARESHWARA NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, SRK POST, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 077
R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE
JAKKUR POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU-560 065
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 11 ARE R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE JAKKUR POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU-560 064
SRI C.K JAFFER SHARIF S/O LATE ABDUL KAREEM DEAD BY HIS LRS.,
W/O LATE C.J KHADER NAWAZ SHARIEFF AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.12 TO 18 ARE R/AT NO.46. HAINES ROAD, FRAZER TOWN BENGALURU-560 005
MR.FAROOQ AHMED S/O LATE BASHEER AHMED DEAD BY LRS
RESPONDENT NO.20 & 21 ARE R/AT NO.31, 3RD CROSS, KRISHNAMMA GARDEN ANJANEYA BLOCK, AQSA MASJID, J.C. NAGAR BENGALURU56-560 036
22 . SRI K.R. SUDEER S/O K.N. RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT HANUMANAHALLI MARALAVADI POST, KANAKAPURA TALUK BENGALURU-560 121
23 . SMT.GOWRAMMA
W/O D.KALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.389, KALLAPPA LAYOUT,
1ST CROSS, SAHAKARANAGARA POST, AMRUTHAHALLI BANGALURU-560 092
24 . SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O APPAJAPPA AGED AGOUT 70 YEARS R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE JAKKURU POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI BANGALURU-560 064
25 . SRI MUSHTAQ AHMED S/O BASHEER AHMED AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS MANAGING COMMITTEE MEMBER AND OFFICER BEARER, MASJID-E- BILAL NO.31. 3RD CROSS, KRISHNAMMA GARDEN, ANJAYEYA BLOCK,MUNIREDDY PALYA BENGALURU-560 046
26 . SRI SYED TAJUDDIN
S/O LATE SYED KAREEM AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO.3/1, 5TH MAIN ROAD, PALACE GUTTAHALLI BENGALURU-560 003
27 . SRI SHAIK MAHAMOOD S/O SHAIK ISMAIL AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.20, DHANKOTI LANE CROSS THIMMAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU-560 051
28 . SRI A.MOHABOOB PASHA S/O LATE A.RAHAMAN AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT SY NO.75/4, CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, JAKKURU POST,YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU-560 064
29 . SRI V.KRISHNA REDDY S/O V.GANGI REDDY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE JAKKURU POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU-560 064
30 . SRI G.VIJAYAKUMAR S/O LATE H.GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
31 . SRI G.VASANTHAKUMAR S/O LATE H.GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
RESPONDENT NO.30 & 31 ARE R/AT NO,264, 5TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST PHASE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD MANJUNATH NAGARA BENGALURU-560 010
..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.ARUNA SHYAM, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL ALONGWITH SRI D.S.SHIVANANDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI S.VINOD PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6; V/O DATED 31.08.2020, NOTICE TO R7 TO R31 IS DISPENSED WITH )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DATED 17.06.2020 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN CASE AT ANNEXURE-A, SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO P1 AND 2 LAND I.E., LAND BEARING SY.NO.75/4, MEASURING 0.20 GUNTAS AND P.3 LAND BEARING SY.NO.75/4 MEASURING 0.12 GUNTAS OF CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, HOLDING THE SAME AS ILLEGAL, IRREGULAR.
IN WP No.9179 OF 2020:
BETWEEN
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.GIRISH S.JAMBAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND
BENGALURU 560 001
ALL ARE R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE JAKKUR POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE-560 064
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.ARUNA SHYAM, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL ALONGWITH SRI D.S.SHIVANANDA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI S.VINOD PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5 SRI B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 DATED: 17.06.2020 VIDE ANNX-V IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED, CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS
TO MAINTAIN AND CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN THE REVENUE RECORDS IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS IN SO FAR TO THEIR LANDS ARE CONCERNED.
IN WP No.9196 OF 2020:
BETWEEN
SRI.KRISHNAPPA S/O APPAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, JAKKURU POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE-560 064
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SREEVATSA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.PRASHANTH M.M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
REP BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY
S/O YARRAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 11 ARE R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, JAKKUR POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE-560 064
RESPONDENTS NO.12(a) TO 12(g) ARE R/AT NO.46, HAINES ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BANGALORE-560 005
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.31, 3RD CROSS, KRISHNAMMA GARDEN ANJANEYA BLOCK, AQSA MASJID, J.C.NAGARA BANGALORE-560 036
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.3/1, 5TH MAIN ROAD, PALACE GUTTAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 003
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.264, 5TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST PHASE WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MANJUNATH NAGARA, BANGALORE-560 010
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.ARUNA SHYAM, ADDITIONAL ADV. GENERAL A/W SRI D.S.SHIVANANDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI S.VINOD PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6; SRI VIJAYA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE FOR R7, R19 & R20; SRI I.THARANATH POOJARI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI M.R.BALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R8; SRI RAHUL CARIAPPA K.S., ADVOCATE FOR R12 (a to g); SRI B.V.GANGIREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R13; SMT.S.SUSHEELA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.P.M.NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R16; SRI B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R26; VIDE ORDER DATED:06.10.2020, NOTICE TO R9, R10, R14 (a & b), R15, R17, R18, R21 TO R23 IS DISPENSED WITH AND NOTICE TO R11 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; R24 AND R25 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:17.6.2020 PASSED BY
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION BANGALORE, THE RESPONDENT NO.2 HERE I.E ANNEXURE-A IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING SY NO.75/4 MEASURING TO THE EXTENT OF 3 ACRE 19 GUNTAS SITUATED AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANAKA HOBLI, BANGLAORE NORTH TALUK.
IN WP No.9203 OF 2020:
BETWEEN
SMT.GOWRAMMA W/O D.KALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.389, KALLAPPA LAYOUT, 1ST CROSS, SAHAKARNAGARA POST, AMRUTHAHALLI, BANGALORE-560092
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT.S.SUSHEELA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI P.M.NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.12(a) TO 12(g) ARE R/AT NO.46, HAINES ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BANGALORE-560 005.
DEAD BY HIS LRS
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.31, 3RD CROSS, KRISHNAMMA GARDEN ANJANEYA BLOCK, AQSA MASJID, J.C.NAGARA BANGALORE-560 036
JAKKURU POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE-560 064
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.264, 5TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST PHASE WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MANJUNATH NAGARA, BANGALORE-560 010
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER 17.6.2020 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE THE R-2 HEREIN I.E ANENXURE-A IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY NO.75/4 MEASURING TO THE EXTENT
OF 3 ACRES 16 GUNTAS SITUATED AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.
IN WP No.9275 OF 2020:
BETWEEN
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.264 5TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST PHASE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MANJUNATHNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.K.SUMAN, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.SIDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6 ARE RESIDING CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, JAKKURU POST, YELAHANKAHOBLI BENGALURU-560 064
8 . SRI ASHWATH REDDY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS S/O MUNISWAMY REDDY RESIDING AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, JAKKURU POST, YELAHANKAHOBLI BENGALURU-560 064
9 . SMT.MUNILAKSHMMA MAJOR IN AGE D/O LATE MUNIANJANAPPA RESIDING AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, JAKKURU POST, YELAHANKAHOBLI BENGALURU-560 064
10 . SMT.ANJANAMMA MAJOR IN AGE W/O LATE LINGAPPA RESIDING CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, JAKKURU POST, YELAHANKAHOBLI
BENGALURU-560 064
SL.NO.11(A) TO (G) RESIDING AT NO.46, HAINES ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU-560 005
JAKKURU POST, YELAHANAKA HOBLI, BENGALURU-560 064
SL.NO.13(a) & (b) ARE R/AT 31, 3RD CROSS, KRISHNAPPA GARDEN, ANJANEYA BLOCK, AQSA MASJID, J.C. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560036
S/O APPAJAPPA RESIDING AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE JAKKUR POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU-560 046.
17 . SRI. MUSHTAQ AHMED MAJOR IN AGE S/O SRI BASHEER AHMED MANAGING COMMITTEE MEMBER AND OFFICE BEARER MASJID-E-BAILAL NO.31, 3RD CROSS, KRISHNAMMA GARDEN ANJANEYA BLOCK, MUNIREDDYPALYAM, BENGALURU-560 046.
18 . SRI SYED TAJUDDIN MAJOR IN AGE S/O LATE SYED KAREEM RESIDING AT NO.3/1, 5TH MAIN ROAD, PALACE GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU-560003
19 . SRI K.LOKESH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA RESIDING AT N.NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, KOTHANURU POST, BENGLAURU-560077
20 . SRI K.MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA RESIDING AT N.NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, KOTHANUR POST, BENGALURU-560077
MAJOR IN AGE S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA RESIDING AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE JAKKUR POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE-560004
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.ARUNA SHYAM, ADDITIONAL ADV. GENERAL A/W
SRI D.S.SHIVANANDA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI S.VINOD PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5; SRI I.THARANATH POOJARI, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI M.R.BALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R7; SRI RAHUL CARIAPPA K.S., ADVOCATE FOR R11 (a to g); SRI K.R.KRISHNA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R12; SMT.S.SUSHEELA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI.P.M.NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R15; SRI VIJAYA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE FOR R7, R19 TO R21; SRI B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R25;
VIDE ORDER DATED: 25.11.2020, NOTICE TO R8, R9, R13 (a & b), R14, R17, R18, R22 TO R24 IS DISPENSED WITH AND NOTICETO R11 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; R6, R19 AND R16 ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 DATED 17.06.2020 I.E. ANNEXURE-A AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND UNJUST and DIRECT THE R-1 AND 2 TO RESTORE THE NAMES OF THE R-8 TO 10 IN THE REVENUE RECORDS IN RELATION TO THE LANDS IN SY.NO.75/4 OF CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL.) TALUK, NOW YELAHANKA TALUK AS UNDER:
IN WP No.9502 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
KOGILU BELLAHALLI CROSS ROAD YELAHANKA BENGALURU-560 064
2 . MR.ABDUL WAHAB S/O LATE C.J.ABDUL KAREEM AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO.106/2, KOGILU LAYOUT KOGILU BELLAHALLI CROSS ROAD YELAHANKA BENGALURU-560 064
3 . MRS.UMME KULSUM W/O DR.SALEEM AHMED IQBAL D/O LATE C.J.ABDUL KAREEM AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT SY. NO.106/2, KOGILU LAYOUT KOGILU, BELLAHALLI CROSS ROAD YELAHANKA BENGALURU-560 064
4 . DR.UMME SALMA D/O LATE C.J. ABDUL KAREEM AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT NO.106/2, KOGILU LAYOUT KOGILU BELLAHALLI CROSS ROAD YELAHANKA BENGALURU-560 064
5 . MRS.ZAREEN KANJI W/O LATE C.J. KHADER NAWAJ SHARIEFF AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.A3, NO.46 HAINES ROAD, FRASER TOWN BENGALURU-560005
6 . MR ABDUL RAHAMAN SHARIEFF S/O LATE C.J. KHADER NAWAJ SHARIEFF AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO.A3, NO.46 HAINES ROAD,
FRASER TOWN BENGALURU-560005
7 . DR JAMEELA NAWAZ D/O C.J. KHADER NAWAJ SHARIEFF AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT NO.46 HAINES ROAD, FRASER TOWN BENGALURU-560 005
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.RAHUL CARIAPPA K.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.ARUNA SHYAM, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SRI D.S.SHIVANANDA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOCALL FOR RECORDS ON THE FILE TO THE R-2 AND AFTER GOING THROUGH THE PROPRIETY, LEGALITY AND OTHERWISE OF THE ORDER DATED 17.06.2020 PASSED THEREIN AS PER ANNEXURE-A ISSUE WRIT SETTING ASIDE THE SAME AND ETC.
IN WP NO 9529 OF 2020
BETWEEN
SRI MUNIRAJA REDDY S/O RAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, JAKKURU POST BANGALORE-560 064
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.I.THARANATH POOJARI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI M.R.BALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
5 . SRI N.RAJAREDDY S/O LATE NARAYANAREDDY RESIDING AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE JAKKURU POST, YALAHANKA BANGALORE-560 064
6 . SRI Y.ASHWATH S/O YERRAPPA RESIDING AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE JAKKURU POST, YELAHANKA BANGALORE-560064
7 . SRI B.KADHARE LAKKAPPA S/O BYLAPPA RESIDING AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE JAKKURU POST, YELAHANKA BANGALORE-560064
8 . SRI MUNIREDDY
S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA RESIDING AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE JAKKURU POST, YELAHANKA BANGALORE-560064
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-(a) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 17.06.2020 PASSED BY R-2 IN THE PROCEEDINGS VIDE ANNX-A; (b) DIRECT THE R-1 TO 4 TO MUTATE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE REVENUE RECORDS PERTAINING TO 10 ACRES 24 GUNTAS OF LAND AS PER THE RE-GRANT ORDER DTD 30.07.1975 VIDE ANNEXURE-C.
IN WP No.14796 OF 2020:
BETWEEN
SRI RADHAKRISHNA REDDY S/O LATE CHIKKATHAYAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE JAKKUR POST YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 064
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.K.R.KRISHNA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
3 . THE TAHASILDAR YALAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU-560 064
4 . SRI N.RAJA REDDY S/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS RESIDING AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE JAKKUR POST YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-560064
RESPONDENTS NO.12(a) TO (g) ARE RESIDING AT NO.46 HAINES ROAD FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU-560 005
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.31 3RD CROSS KRISHNAMMA GARDEN, ANJINAYA BLOCK AQSA MASJID, J.C. NAGAR BENGALURU-560 036
14 . SRI K.R.SUDEER S/O K.N. RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT HANUMANAHALLI MARALVADI POST KANAKAPURA TALUK BENGALURU-560121
15 . SMT.GOWRAMMA W/O D.KALAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.389 KALAPPA LAYOUT 1ST CROSS, SAHAKARANAGARA POST AMRUTHAHALLI BENGALURU-560092
16 . SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O APPAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDING AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE JAKKUR POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-560064
17 . SRI MUSTAQ AHMED S/O BASHEER AHMED AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS MANAGING COMMITTEE MEMBER AND OFFICE BEARER MASJID-E-BILAL NO.31, 3RD CROSS, KRISHNAMMA GARDEN ANJINAYA BLOCK, MUNIREDDYPALYAM BENGALURU-560046
RESPONDENTS NO.19 AND 2O ARE RESIDING AT N.NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE KOTHANOOR POST BENGALURU-560077
RESIDING CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE JAKKUR POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU-560064
RESPOMDENTS NO.24 AND 25 ARE RESIDING AT NO.264, 5TH MAIN ROAD 1ST PHASE, WEST OF CORD ROAD MANJUNATHANAGARA, BENGALURU-560010
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-(a) CALL FOR RECORDS ON THE FILE OF R-2; (b) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:17.06.2020 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-N IS RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.75/4 MEASURING 10 ACRES 24 GUNTAS SITUATED AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.
IN WP No.10434 OF 2021:
BETWEEN
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.RAVI KUMAR V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.ARUNA SHYAM, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SRI.D.S.SHIVANANDA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT No.1 DATED 17.6.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
FACTS:
village stood vested in the State and all rights over the lands in K.G. Chokkanahalli village by other persons, including the inamdars, stood extinguished.
applications were made by the kadim tenants, minor inamdars and inamdars as provided under the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954. According to Register No.VIII maintained by the State Government under Section 11 of the said Act, land to an extent of about 291 acres 07½ guntas was registered in the name of the Kadim tenants under Section 4 of the said Act. No lands were however registered in favour of either permanent tenants or to quasi permanent tenants under Sections 5 and 6 of the said Act.
registered in favour of the minor inamdars under Sections 7 and 8 of the said Act and a total extent of 252 acres 11½ guntas was registered in favour of the Inamdars under Section 9 of the said Act. Thus, an
extent of about 560 acres and 12 guntas was registered in the name of Kadim tenants, minor inamdars and inamdars under the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (Document No.1 to the affidavit dated 30.07.2022 produced in W.P. No.9203 of 2020) .
stood vested with the State.
claim was made nor an order of registration was passed in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.75/4.
is not in dispute. The petitioners herein are persons who claim that they were either re-granted the land or that they were granted lands by the Special Deputy Commissioner. Some of the petitioners are purchasers from the persons who claimed to have been re-granted the land.
ORDERS OF GRANT:
referred to as the ‘1965 re-grant’ for the purpose of brevity.
II. The second order of re-grant that is put forth in these cases is an order of re-grant made on 17th October 1966 in respect of 7 acres 6 guntas in favour of one T. Krishna Reddy. This grant shall hereinafter be referred to as the ‘1966 re-grant’.
III. The third order of re-grant is stated have been made on 30th July 1975 in respect of 10 acres 24 guntas in favour of one Muniraja Reddy. This grant is referred to as the ‘1975 re-grant’ hereinafter.
IV. The fourth order of grant claimed in these petitions is the order of grant stated to have been made on 31st September 1978 in favour
of four persons namely, Ashwath Reddy, Muni Anjanappa, Lingappa and Muniraja Reddy. This
grant hereinafter are referred to as the ‘1978 grant’.
FIRST ORDER OF GRANT, i.e., 1965 Re-grant :
six purchasers was Anjani (The names of the six purchasers are: Muninarasimha Reddy, Nadappa (also Nadukala) Narasimha Reddy, Anjani, Huchappa, Mudaiah and Munishamy).
favour on 13th July 1999 and 14th July 1999 to an extent of 1 acre 28 guntas each, in all 3 acres 16 guntas (Annexures ‘F’ and ‘F2’ to W.P. No.9203 of 2020) .
SECOND ORDER OF RE-GRANT i.e., 1966 Re-grant :
the entire land from one Huchchappa under a registered sale deed dated 08th August 1961. The sale deed indicates that he had purchased land to an extent of 13 acres 28 guntas in Sy.No.75/3 and western portion of the 1/3rd of 21 acres 19 guntas in Sy.No.75/4. Thus, according to this sale deed, T. Krishna Reddy is stated to
have purchased 7 acres 06 guntas which was situate on the western side of Sy.No.75/4 (Annexure “D” to W.P. No.9482 of 2020) .
and K.Manjunath under registered sale deed dated 03rd January 2006 (Annexure ‘B’) .
6 guntas on 24th November 1982 in favour of Aminabi and C.J.Abdul Kareem, her son (Annexure “E” to W.P. No.9502 of 2020) . The petitioners in W.P.No.9502 of 2020 are stated to be the legal heirs of Aminabi and C.J.Abdul Kareem and they are laying a claim in respect of this 5 acres 6 guntas of Sy.No.75/4 .
THIRD ORDER OF GRANT i.e., 1975 Re-grant:
relinquished their property in favour of Chikkathayappa Reddy, the father of the petitioner-Radha Krishna Reddy.
Radha Krishna Reddy had, in fact, been litigating before the Civil Court in O.S.No.133 of 2011 for partition. It is stated that the said suit was dismissed and an appeal in R.F.A. No.229 of 2022 is pending. Thus, the 1975 regrant in respect of 10 acres 24 guntas is confined to two claimants i.e., Muniraja Reddy and Radha Krishna Reddy, who claim as the legal heirs of Nadukala Narasimha Reddy.
FOURTH ORDER OF RE-GRANT i.e., 1978 Grant :
interest, i.e., Munilakshmamma—wife of Muni Anjanappa (the second grantee mentioned above) and Anjanamma— wife of Lingappa (the third grantee mentioned above) are stated to have entered into three Agreements of Sale on 17th June 2010 with one H.Govindappa and his two sons G.Vijay Kumar and G.Vasanth Kumar. G.Vijay Kumar and G.Vasanth Kumar are the petitioners in W.P. No.9275 of 2020 and are staking a claim over these lands granted in the year 1978 on the basis of Agreements of Sale that they claim to have entered with the grantees.
FIFTH SET OF GRANT i.e., 1984 Re-grant:
amount on 26th June 1984 and had thus become the owner.
two Sale Deeds, one in favour of Mohammad Shariff and three others on 20th September 1984 to an extent of 03 acres 16½ guntas and another sale deed, also dated 20th September 1984 in favour of Sharifunnissa to an equal extent of 03 acres 16½ guntas.
Sharifunnissa and two others, who had purchased remaining 03 acres 16½ guntas have also sold their
property to an extent of 03 acres 16½ guntas in favour Syed Saleem Pasha under registered Sale Deed dated 09th May 1988 and Syed Saleem Pasha has, in turn, conveyed the property that is purchased under the registered sale deed in favour of A.Mehboob Pasha and A.Khaleel under registered Sale Deed dated 04th July 1989. It is stated that A.Khaleel had relinquished his rights in the property in favour of co-purchaser A.Mehboob Pasha and thus A.Mehboob Pasha has become the owner of 03 acres 16½ guntas. This A.Mehboob Pasha is the second petitioner in W.P.No.9179 of 2020.
HISTORY OF LITIGATION:
called for a report from the Tahasildar by his communication dated 17th August 2000.
“UÁæªÀĸÀÜgÀÄ ¸ÀéAvÀ G¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀPÉ̬ÄnÖgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀæAiÀÄPÉÌ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ C£ÀĨsÀªÀ”
K.V.Jayaram and J.S. Nanjundappa (the persons claiming under the 1975 grant) showing R.R. Nos.226A and 226B.
also noticed that the Case No.INAPR 104/66-67 which was relied upon by the 1966 grantee, was unavailable.
226 by inserting an entry as R.R.Nos.226A and 226B. He therefore concluded that the claim of T.Krishna Reddy (1975 grantee) was unacceptable and his name could not be entered.
came to the conclusion that there was a valid order of grant insofar as it related to the 1984 grant and he proceeded to hold that all the revenue entries, except the persons claiming under the 1984 grant, were liable to be removed from revenue entries and he also directed
the Tahasildar to evict the unauthorised occupants of this land.
under the 1965 grant were negatived by this Court in W.P. No.24403 of 2004 and W.P. No.23271 of 2004 and these persons did not choose to challenge the order passed by learned Single Judge and these judgments have thus attained finality. As a consequence, their claims to have their names entered in the revenue records stood rejected and this rejection has also attained finality.
entitled to prosecute their claims to have their names entered in the revenue records.
was also reserved to the petitioners to challenge the order of the Deputy Commissioner in accordance with law (Annexure ‘P’ to W.P. No.9529 of 2020) .
that they had established their rights to have their names entered, on the basis of their respective grants.
writ petitions and ultimately, in W.P. Nos.59273-78 of 2017 and connected matters, this Court, by an order dated 16th November 2017, set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for a fresh concentration of all the claims.
the entries in respect of Sy.No.75/4 were not sustainable and it was required that all the names found in the records in relation to Sy.No.75/4 were required to be
deleted and the name of the “Government” was to be entered.
The claim under the 1965 Re-grant:
Special Deputy Commissioner passed an order of regrant on 15th February 1965. The fact as to whether an order of re-grant was indeed passed in favour of Appajappa is, however, in serious dispute.
right at all over Sy.No.75/4 and hence, their name could not be entered.
the basis of the order of re-grant, it will have to be held that as on 1981, the applicants did not stake a claim on the basis of the order of re-grant and this renders their whole claim suspicious. The entries in fact read as follows:
ªÀÄÄåmÉõÀ£ï ªÀ»
UÁæªÀÄ : ZÉÆPÀÌ£ÀºÀ½î ºÉÆç½:AiÀÄ®ºÀAPÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ:¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ GvÀÛgÀ
| 7/1980-81 | ¨ÉA//GvÀÛgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ AiÀÄ//ºÉÆÃ// ZÉÆPÀÌ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ DAd£À¥Àà£À ªÀÄUÀ C¥Áàd¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀÄ ¥ÀºÀuÉ §gÀ¹PÉÆqÀ®Ä CfðPÉÆlÖ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ gÉPÁqïð ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛAiÀiÁV DqÀðgï DUÀ®Ä avÀÛ |
75/4 ¥ÉÊQ 1-28 |
V.A.µÀgÁ ¥sÁgÀA £ÀA,21 æ AiÀiÁªÀ vÀAmÉ DzÀÝjAzÀ ªÀÄAdÆgÁUÀ®Ä |
gÀ°è ¥ÀæZÀÄgÀ ¥Àr¹ vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ªÀÄÄåmÉõÀ£ï avÀÛ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8/1980-81 | ¨ÉA//GvÀÛgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ AiÀÄ//ºÉÆÃ// ZÉÆPÀÌ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÁ¹ PÀjAiÀÄ¥Àà£À ªÀÄUÀ FgÀ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀÄ ¥ÀºÀt §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉUÉ CfðPÉÆlÖ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¥ÀºÀt §gÉAiÀÄ®Ä DqÀðgï DUÀ®Ä avÀÛ |
75/4 ¥ÉÊQ 1-28 |
V.A.µÀgÁ ¥sÁgÀA £ÀA,21 æ AiÀiÁªÀ vÀAmÉ DzÀÝjAzÀ ªÀÄAdÆgÁUÀ®Ä |
gÀ°è ¥ÀæZÀÄgÀ ¥Àr¹ vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ªÀÄÄåmÉõÀ£ï avÀÛ |
| 9/1980-81 | ¨ÉA//GvÀÛgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ AiÀÄ//ºÉÆÃ// ZÉÆPÀÌ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÁ¹ ¨sÀ// DAd£À¥Àà£À ªÀÄUÀ £ÀAd¥Àà §gɹPÉÆlÖ ¥ÀºÀuÉ §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉ CfðAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ DqÀðgï DUÀ®Ä avÀÛ |
75/4 ¥ÉÊQ 1-28 |
V.A.µÀgÁ ¥sÁgÀA £ÀA,21 æ AiÀiÁªÀ vÀAmÉ DzÀÝjAzÀ ªÀÄAdÆgÁUÀ®Ä |
gÀ°è ¥ÀæZÀÄgÀ ¥Àr¹ vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ªÀÄÄåmÉõÀ£ï avÀÛ |
1965 till 1981, there is no indication of any order of regrant that had been made. Krishnappa—the son of Appajappa, the recipient of the order of re-grant claims that his name had been entered in column No.12(2). If an order of re-grant had been made in favour of
Appajappa, obviously there should have been a corresponding entry in the revenue records regarding the grant in Column No.9. However, even according to Krishnappa the names were entered only in column No.12 i.e., the Cultivators' column.
the village stood vested in favour of the State, only those persons who have made applications seeking for registration as occupants will secure a right over the lands that they claim if an order registering them as an occupant is passed by the competent authority under the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954. It cannot be in dispute that it is only if it is established that a person is a lawful occupant of the land, can his name be entered in the revenue records.
respect of the claims made on the lands in Chokkanahalli village in these writ petitions. (Document Nos.1-36 to affidavit dated 30.07.2022 in W.P. No.9203 of 2020).
following manner:
| Sl. No. |
Type of Tenants | Under Section |
Extent of land |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Kadim Tenants | 4 | 291 A-07½ G |
| 2. | Permanent Tenants | 5 | Nil |
| 3. | Quasi-permanent tenants |
6 | Nil |
| 4. | Minor Inamdars | 7 & 8 | 16 A-33 G |
| 5. | Inamdars | 9 | 252 A-11½ G |
| TOTAL | 560 A- 12 G |
Acres 07½ Guntas has been registered in favour of the Kadim Tenants while the remaining land has been registered in favour of the Minor Inamdars and Inamdars under Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Mysore (Personal and
Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act. Thus, the abstract of the Register, accounts for all the lands in Chokkanahalli village.
Reddy or Muniraja Reddy is not found in this Register. In fact, there is no claim made by any person in respect of Sy.No.75/4 as per the Register.
free from all encumbrances and no person would have a right to have his name entered in the revenue records after 02nd October 1956, except the ones in whose favour orders of re-grant had been made by the Special Deputy Commissioner. In this view of the matter, the claim made on the premise that there were orders of regrant made in respect of Sy.No.75/4 is wholly without any substance.
the land under the grant order dated 30th July 1975, will have to fail.
Government has taken up this specific contention that there is no order of re-grant at all made on 15th February 1965. However, the petitioners have produced the order of re-grant dated 15th February 1965. The basis for the order of re-grant is obviously the sale made by the Jodidar on 19th January 1920, in favour of six persons including one Anjani—father of Appajappa. The relevant portion of the sale deed dated 19th January 1920 reads as follows:
" ¸À£ï ¸Á«gÀzÀ ªÀA¨sÉÊ£ÀÆgÀ ¬Ä¥ÀàvÀÛ£É ¬Ä¸À« d£ÀªÀj vÁjÃRÄ ºÀ¢£ÉAlgÀ®Æè ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPï AiÀÄ®ºÀAPÀ ºÉÆç½ SÁAiÀÄAUÀÄvÁÛ aPÀÌ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è ¬ÄgÀĪÀ ªÀAzÀ£É ¦¯ÁègÉrØ ªÀÄUÀ ªÀÄĤ£ÁgÀ²AºÁä gÉrØ JgÀqÀ£É £ÀAeÁgÉrØ ªÀÄUÀ £ÀqÀ¥À£ÁgÀ²AºÁågÉrØ ªÀÄÆgÀ£Éà §AlæºÀ½î ZÀgÀªÀÄä£À ªÀÄUÀ DAd¤ £Á®Ì£É ºÀÄt¸ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀAdAiÀÄå£À ªÀÄUÀ ºÀÄZÀÑ¥Àà C¬ÄzÀ£É UÉÆ®ègÀ £ÁUÀtÚ£À ªÀÄUÀ ªÀÄzÀÝAiÀÄå DgÀ£É UÉÆ®ègÀ ªÀiÁgÀAiÀÄå£À ªÀÄUÀ ªÀÄĤ±Á«Ä ¬ÄªÀgÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ²n §¸ÀªÀ£ÀUÀÄrAiÀÄ°è ¬ÄgÀÄé PÉƼÉîUÁ®zÀ ±À§tÚ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆlÖ d«ÄÃ£ï ±ÀÄzÀÞ PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ºÁåUÀAzÀgÉ DzÁV ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPï AiÀÄ®ºÀAPÀzÀ ºÉÆç½ SÁAiÀÄAUÀÄvÁÛ ZÉÆPÀÌ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ ¸À£ï ¸Á«gÀzÀ ªÀA¨sÉÊ£ÀÆgÀ ºÀ¢£ÁgÀ£É ¬Ä¸À« CPÉÆÖçgï vÁjÃRÄ ºÀ¢£Á®ÌgÀ®Æè SÁAiÀÄAUÀÄvÁÛ zÁjæAzÀ SÁAiÀÄA PÀAzÁAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½UÉ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ D¯ÁUÁAiÀÄÄÛ £À£Àß ¸Áé¢üãÁ£ÀĨsÀªÀzÀ°è
¬ÄgÀÄé d«ÄäUÉ ZÀPÀÄ̧A¢ ¥ÀƪÀðPÉÌ zÀAr£À zÁj ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ £ÀgÀ¸ÀAiÀÄå£ÀªÀgÀ ¬Ä£ÀÆßgÀÄ UÀd ¥ÀƪÀð ¥À²éêÀĪÀżÀî d«ÄãÀÄ GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ aPÀÌPÀzÀgÀ¥Àà£À d«ÄãÀÄ zÀQëtPÉÌ ¸ÀA¦UɺÀ½î ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÀ¼À¸ÀAzÀæzÀ AiÀįÉèUÀ¼ÀÄ ¬Ä ªÀÄzsÉå ¬ÄgÀÄé DPÁgÀ JgÀqÀÄ gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä AiÀÄA¨ÁtªÀżÀî SÁAiÀÄA PÀAzÁAiÀÄzÀ ¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß ¬Ä ¢ªÀì ¤ªÀÄäUÀ½UÉ UËgÀߪÉÄAlÄ LªÀvÀÄÛ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ½UÉ RjâUÉ PÉÆlÄÖ Rjâ ªÉƧ®UÀ£ÀÄß ¬Ä ¥ÀvÀæPÉÌ ¸ÁQë ºÁQgÀĪÀªÀgÀ ªÉÆSÁÛ £ÀUÀzÁV vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆÌAqÀÄ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ZÀPÀÄ̧A¢UÉ ªÀ¼À¥ÀlÖ «²µÀÖ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¬Ä ¢ªÀìªÉ ¤ªÀÄäUÀ¼À ¸Áé¢üãÀ¥Àr¬Ä¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ¬Ä ¯ÁUÁAiÀÄÛ SÁAiÀÄA UÀÄvÁÛ zÁjæUÉ ¥ÁªÀw DUÀvÀPÀÌ PÀAzÁAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃªÉ vÉvÀÄÛPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÀPÀÆÌ PÀæAiÀÄ, zÁ£À, ªÀUÉÊgÉ, CµÀÖ ¨sÉÆÃUÀ vÉÃd ¸ËªÀÄå ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ ZÀvÀĵÀàAiÀÄPÀÆÌ ¨ÁzÀågÁV ¤ªÀÄä ¥ÀÄvÀæ ¥ËvÀæ ¥ÁgÀA¥ÀgÀåªÁV ¸ÀÄR¢AzÀ C£ÀĨsÀ«¹PÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÀÄ C¬ÄzÀ ªÀÄvÁåªÀ «zsÀªÁzÀ vÀAmÉ vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ K£ÁzÀgÀÆ §AzÀ°è £Á£Éà ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆÌqÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ¬Ä d«ÄäUÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ SÁAiÀÄA UÀÄvÁÛ zÁjAzÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ¬ÄgÀĪÀ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ SÁgÀ©£À SÁgÀ PÀAzÁAiÀÄzÀ ¸ÁªÀÅUÀ½UÉ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ±ÀÄ®Ì ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁr ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ¬ÄgÀĪÀ PÀAzÁAiÀÄzÀ gÀ²Ã¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÁ zÁR¯É §UÉÎ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀ±ÀPÀÆÌ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ £À£Àß RÄzÀÄÝ ªÀÄ£ÉÆÃgÁf¬ÄAzÀ ªÀ¦à §gÉ¢PÉÆlÖ d«ÄÃ£ï ±ÀÄzÀÞ PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸À».
¬ÄzÀPÉÌ ¸ÁQëUÀ¼ÀÄ:-
1£Éà ¥ÀĸÀÛPÀ 397£Éà ¸ÀA¥ÀÄl 355 jAzÀ 358£Éà ¥ÀÄlUÀ¼À°è 3316£Éà £ÀA§gÁV ¢£ÁAPÀ: 28.01.1920 gÀAzÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ G¥À £ÉÆÃAzÀtÂAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. "
claim, did not contain the survey number at all, it is inconceivable that Appajappa had a right to claim regrant of the land, over land to which he possessed title under this sale deed.
that the existing typed matter which read 15th February 1965 was typed over the originally typed matter after erasure and the original typed date was deciphered as “ 11th March 1966" . It is thus clear that the Forensic Department has found that the order dated 15th February 1965 has been tampered with.
though the land is stated to have been granted in the year 1965, for almost twenty years, there is no entry in
favour of the recipient of the order of grant. There is also no record to indicate that any premium was paid. In the light of these facts, the assertion that there is an order of re-grant on 15th February 1965 cannot be accepted at all.
consequently, have no right to have their names entered in the revenue records. The order of the Deputy Commissioner is therefore perfectly in order and does not call for any interference.
The claim under the 1966 Re-grant:
under registered sale deed dated 09th August 1965. (Annexure “E” to W.P. No.9482 of 2020, at pages 99 to 106).
guntas, obviously, K.V.Jayaram and J.S.Nanjundappa could have acquired title over 07 acres 06 guntas only.
guntas out of 02 acres 28 guntas in favour of K.Lokesh and K.Manjunath and in the other sale deed dated 24th January 2006, he sold 12 guntas in favour of Muni Reddy (Annexures 'B’ and ‘C’ to W.P. No.9482 of 2020) .
was rejected by the revenue authorities vide M.R. No.15/1965-67 and M.R. No.16/1965-67 on the ground that these properties in respect of which mutation is sought, i.e., Sy.No.75/4 measuring 21 acres 20 guntas was classified as ” unclaimed ” property by the Special Deputy Commissioner.
contention that there was an order of re-grant in favour of T.Krishna Reddy would be incorrect. He has also noticed that there was no case number bearing No.INA.PR.104/1966-67, as found in the order of regrant put forth by T.Krishna Reddy.
insertion has been made and the entire basis of the claim put forth by T.Krishna Reddy and consequently, by his successors-in-interest was in serious doubt.
Though Krishna Reddy had sold his entire holding in the year 1965 itself, he has nevertheless sought for re-grant and claims to have secured an order of re-grant on 17th October 1966. Since, T.Krishna Reddy had lost all subsisting interest in Sy.No.75/4 as on the date 09th August 1965 itself, he could not obviously seek and obtain an order of re-grant in the year 1966 and thus, the entire claim that an order of re-grant had been made in favor of T.Krishna Reddy will have to be rejected.
No.15/1965-67 and M.R. No.16/1965-67, but, nevertheless was accepted vide M.R. No.23/1966-67 and M.R. No.24/1966-67, coupled with insertion made on the strength of M.R. Nos.23/1966-67 and 24/1966-67, clearly leads to the conclusion that the names of T.Krishna Reddy and his purchasers were sought to be surreptitiously inserted though there was no order of grant at all.
accepted since 17th October 1966 was a Monday, in view of the reasons mentioned above regarding the re-grant, this reasoning may not be of any relevance.
was a purchase by Aminabi and C.J.Abdul Kareem from K.V.Jayaram and J.S.Nanjundappa and the report did not really examine whether the proceedings had been actually initiated for re-grant and whether there was a valid order of re-grant.
THE CLAIM UNDER THE 1975 RE-GRANT:
Commissioner dated 30th July 1975. Muniraja Reddy claims that his name was to be entered in the revenue records on the basis of the re-grant order passed in his favour on 30th July 1975. However, it is also contended by the petitioner in W.P. No.14796 of 2020 that Nadukala Narasimha Reddy—the purchaser under the sale deed dated 19th January 1920, had four sons namely, Narasimha Reddy, Chikkathayappa Reddy, Nanja Reddy and Pilla Reddy.
application that his father Radhakrishna Reddy was cultivating the land jointly with Chikkathayappa Reddy (the father of Radhakrishna Reddy i.e., the petitioner in W.P. No.14796 of 2020), the petitioner also had a share in this property which was the subject property of re-grant dated 30th July 1975 and hence, his name was to be entered in the revenue records.
whereas the land bearing Sy.No.75/4 was a Personal and Miscellaneous Inam and the entire village had been notified under the provisions of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act and consequently, there could have been no order passed under the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act.
grant. He has also stated that though the claim was in respect of 13 acres, the order of re-grant was only in respect of 10 acres 24 guntas and no reason was forthcoming as to why a lesser extent than what was claimed had been granted.
village of Chokkanahalli as having vested in the State by virtue of it being a Religious and Charitable inam and therefore the orders stated to have been passed under the Religious and Charitable Inam would be untenable.
grant in his favour his name was never found in the revenue records till the year 1996.
indicate any such direction issued by the Deputy Commissioner.
the entries were to be made as per the order, necessarily the records should be produced indicating that there has been an order of re-grant and the revenue records have to be suitably mutated.
successors-in-interest of the grants of the years 1965, 1966 and 1975 cannot be found fault at all.
The claim under the 1978 grant:
date of issuance of saguvali chits was on 31st September 1978 and the month of September has only thirty days and therefore, the entire claim was suspected. It is also noticed by him that the original order of grant is not produced and the claim of alleged grantees to have their names entered in the revenue records was unsustainable.
for grant and the same was processed under the Rules and an order was made for grant of the lands.
The claim under the 1984 Re-grant:
30th March 1984. The Land Tribunal by order dated 23rd June 1984 had registered Zaibunnissa Sharif as the occupant. It is contended that she had thereafter deposited the premium on 26th June 1984. It is also stated that thereafter, Zaibunnissa Sharif executed two sale deeds on 20th September 1984 to an extent of 03 acres 16½ guntas each in favour of Mohammed Shariff and three others, and Shariffunnissa and two others. It is also stated that these purchasers viz., Mohammed Shariff and three others, and Shariffunnissa and two others, had executed two sale deeds both dated 09th May 1988 in favour of T.P.Mohammad Hussain and in favour of Syad Saleem Pasha. It is submitted that T.P.Mohammad Hussain sold 03 acres 16½ guntas that he had purchased in favour of K.R.Sudhir under a registered sale deed dated 26th November 2007. It is also stated that Syad Saleem Pasha sold 03 acres 16½ guntas that he had purchased in favour of A.Mehaboob Pasha and A.Khaleel under a registered sale deed dated
04th July 1989. It is also stated that thereafter, A.Khaleel relinquished his rights over the said property in favour of A.Mehaboob Pasha under a registered relinquishment deed dated 09th April 1997.
had sold the land after it had stood vested in the State and as such, Zaibunnissa Sharif had not acquired any
title. It is also observed that the source of the title of Muniswamy Reddy’s vendor was also not forthcoming.
that the order was incorrect and therefore, it would not be given effect to.
relates to the successors-in-interest of Zaibunnissa Sharif i.e., K.Sudhir and A.Mehaboob Pasha—the petitioners in W.P. No.9179 of 2020 will have to be quashed .
Legal contentions advanced by all the Counsel:
in favour of the grantees who claimed under the grant of 1978 vide M.R. No.36/95-96 and this was challenged in an appeal. It is only thereafter litigation started and in the year 2000, the Deputy Commissioner invoked his revisional jurisdiction.
that context, the Court held that the Deputy Commissioner, acting under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act cannot go into the question of correctness or otherwise of an order, or examine whether it is forged or fabricated.
ALLOWED .
permissible in law and obviously, the revenue entries would be subject to any litigation that may be initiated against the order made in favour of Zaibunnissa Sharif.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RK CT: AN*
3 issues framed by the court
Whether revenue authorities can refuse mutation based on a judicial order solely on merits of validity rather than existence.
Whether grantees claimants under alleged 1965 1966 and 1975 re-grant orders have valid title to challenge refusal of mutation.
Whether Deputy Commissioner has jurisdiction to refuse mutation on ground that grant order was illegal or passed under wrong Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District & Another vs. D.Narsing Rao and othersReferred¶192
(2015) 3 SCC 695 · Who else cites this
State of Karnataka, Revenue Department and others vs. Smt.Shakuntalamma w/o. Narappa Reddy and othersReferred¶192
W.A. No.804 of 2018
Kunnappa vs. State of KarnatakaDistinguished¶193
2012 (1) KLJ 28
B.K.Narasinga Rao vs. State of MysoreDistinguished¶192
1966 (2) KLJ 152
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri K.Lokesh S/o Late Krishnappa
Sri K. Manjunath S/o Late Krishnappa
Muni Reddy S/o Late Munivenkata Reddy
The State of Karnataka Revenue Department Vikasa Soudha
The Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru Urban District
The Tahsildar Yelahanka Taluk
N.S.Sanjay Gowda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
