Dismissed

The Joint Director of Land Records v. Smt D K Vinoda Kumari

Karnataka HC18 Jan 2024RP/511/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this review petition, the Union Territory petitioners challenged an order dismissing their writ petition claiming ownership over kharab land allegedly not sold in a public auction. The Court held that land sold in auction becomes the property of the purchaser irrespective of its classification as B Kharab and allowed no error apparent on the face of the record.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed by this Hon'ble Court.

The Joint Director of Land Records Vs Smt D K Vinoda Kumari — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:2585 RP No. 511 of 2023 IN WP No.9325 of 2022 (KLR-RES)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶6

REVIEW PETITION NO.511 OF 2023

¶7

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.9325 OF 2022(KLR-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶11

THE TAHASILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, KANDAYA BHAVAN,

¶12

K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶13

Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI

¶14

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶17

THE COMMISSIONER SURVEY, SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS DEPARTMENT,

¶18

K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI S.S. MAHENDRA, GOVT. ADVOCATE ALONGWITH SRI YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA)

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC:2585 RP No. 511 of 2023 IN WP No.9325 of 2022 (KLR-RES)

¶23

AND:

¶24

SMT. D.K. VINODA KUMARI W/O. LATE K SHANTHARAJU, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT SURVEY NO.1, SATHYA SAI KALPATHARU NURSERY, 12TH MAIN, 16TH CROSS, 5TH PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 078.

¶25

SRI NARASIMHAIAH S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

¶26

SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE EERANNA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

¶27

SMT. AKKARANGAMMA W/O. LATE JAVARANNA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,

¶28

SRI D.N. RANGE GOWDA S/O LATE NAGANNA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,

¶29

SRI DODDA VERANNA S/O LATE G.B. NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,

¶30

SRI THIMMANNA S/O LATE DASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 91 YEARS,

¶31

SRI HANUMANTHARAYAPPA S/O LATE NARASIMHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

¶32

SRI GURULINGAPPA S/O LATE PATEL SIDDALINGE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 96 YEARS,

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:2585 RP No. 511 of 2023 IN WP No.9325 of 2022 (KLR-RES)

¶35

SRI THIMMANNA S/O LATE BHEEMANNA, AGED ABOUT 92 YEARS,

¶36

THE PETITIONERS NO.2 TO 10 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SRI MANJUNATH S/O GOVINDAPPA, R/AT SY.NO.1, SATHYA SAI KALPATHARU NURSERY, 12TH MAIN, 16TH CROSS, 5TH PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 078.

¶37

SRI MANJUNATH S/O GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT SURVEY NO.1, SATHYA SAI KALPATHARU NURSERY, 12TH MAIN, 16TH CROSS, 5TH PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 078.

¶38

…RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI B.S. RADHANANDAN, ADVOCATE)

¶40

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 25.07.2023 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.9325/2022 (KLR-RES), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶41

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:2585 RP No. 511 of 2023 IN WP No.9325 of 2022 (KLR-RES)

¶44

ORDER

¶45

Aggrieved by the order dated 25.07.2023 passed in W.P.No.9325/2022, this review petition has been filed by

¶46

the State.

¶47

On the ground that predecessor-in-title of the respondents purchased 5 acres 28 guntas of land in Survey No.1 of Sarakkikere village by way of a public auction by paying the necessary consideration to the Government, the kharab land measuring about 4 acres 20 guntas of land which formed part of the said 5 acres 28 guntas of land, was held to be owned by the respondents herein and the writ petition that was filed by the State was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners in the writ petition have preferred this review petition.

¶48

The case of the petitioners herein is that, no doubt 5 acres 28 guntas of land was sold to the predecessor-intitle of the respondents by way of public auction by the Government, but of the said 5 acres 28 guntas of land

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:2585 RP No. 511 of 2023 IN WP No.9325 of 2022 (KLR-RES)

¶51

4 acres 20 guntas of land constituted a lake and the same could not have been sold. It is further submitted that the said lake formed 'B' Kharab land and because of which,

¶52

the State has the ownership over the same and the respondents herein do not get any right over the same.

¶53

Admittedly, way back on 19.10.1945, 5 acres 28 guntas of land in Survey No.1 of Sarakkikere village was sold in favour of one S.K.Giriyappa by way of public auction from the then Government. Of the said 5 acres 28 guntas of land, 1 acre 8 guntas of land was arable and 4 acres 20 guntas of land was kharab. Before the said alienation, the said properties were Government properties. But, after the alienation, the said properties became the property of the person who purchased it.

¶54

Kharab does not confer title over the property. Kharab land means, the land is not arable and cannot be assessed for tax. But, it can be owned by a private individual or by the Government. In the instant case, the

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:2585 RP No. 511 of 2023 IN WP No.9325 of 2022 (KLR-RES)

¶57

petitioners do not dispute that 5 acres 28 guntas of land of which 4 acres 20 guntas of kharab land was sold in favour of the respondents. For the very said reason, the writ petition filed by the petitioners herein was dismissed. The petitioners herein have failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the record, in the order passed in W.P.No.9325/2022.

¶58

For the aforementioned reason, the review petition is hereby dismissed. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.

¶59

hkh.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

The Joint Director of Land Records v. Smt D K Vinoda Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Joint Director of Land Records v. Smt D K Vinoda Kumari

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

Mr. Somashekar Vs Mr. Trevor a New Castle

Smt. Jayamma Vs the Commissioner

Ashok Kumar Vs R Janakamma

Arun K P Vs Bangalore Development Authority

A D Kumara Krishna Vs Kollegal Municipality

Smt. Pushpa. G. K. Vs the State of Karnataka