Dismissed

Mr. Kulbandhu Ram Adarsh Sharma v. the Special Deputy Commissioner 1

Karnataka HC7 Aug 2024WA/116/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant sought mutation of land in Sy.No.67, Navaratna Agrahara Village; Tahsildar rejected citing unascertainable boundaries and appellant's lack of possession. Rival claims over the same land were pending in two civil suits for declaration and injunction. Division Bench found no error in the Single Judge's order upholding rejection, holding mutation would abide by the civil suit outcome, and d

What the court decided

AI extract

Mr. Kulbandhu Ram Adarsh Sharma Vs the Special Deputy… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:31370-DB WA No. 116 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND WRIT APPEAL NO. 116 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MR. KULBANDHU RAM ADARSH SHARMA S/O. LATE RAM ADARSH AMINCHAND SHARMA AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.10, SHRUNGAR SOCIETY PARLE POINT ATHVA LINES SURAT - 395 007.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI M. ARUNA SHYAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI MAHESH A.S., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-1 BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION DC OFFICE, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶16

TAHSILDAR BENGALURU NORTH TALUK NO.15, 4^TH FLOOR, YELAHANKA

¶17

BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶18

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS BENGALURU NORTH TALUK No.1, REVENUE SURVEY OFFICE NEW BUILDING, 2^ND FLOOR, MYSORE BANK ROAD, K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:31370-DB WA No. 116 of 2024

¶20

M/S. NAM ESTATES PVT. LTD., HAVING OFFICE AT No.150, 1^ST FLOOR, EMBASSY POINT, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY B.S. NARAYANAN.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3 & SRI K.G. RAGHAVAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI CHANDRASHEKAR PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR / RESPONDENT NO.4)

¶23

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN W.P No. 12714/2021 (KLR-RR/SUR) WHICH WAS DISPOSED OF BY ORDER DATED 18.12.2023 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.12.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P No.12714/2021 (KLR-RR/SUR) AND ALLOW THE INSTANT WRIT APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW W.P. No. 12714/2021 (KLR-RR/SUR) & ETC.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)

¶28

Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. M.Aruna Shyam assisted

¶29

by learned advocate Mr. A.S. Mahesh for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for respondent

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:31370-DB WA No. 116 of 2024

¶31

Nos.1 to 3 and learned Senior Advocate Mr. K.G. Raghavan assisted by Mr. Chandrashekar Patil for caveator/respondent No.4.

¶32

It appears that the appellant herein wanted mutation entry in respect of land Sy.No.67 of Navaratna Agrahara Village, Jala Hobali, Yalahanka Taluka. Order came to be passed on 15.02.2021 by respondent No.2-Tahsildar not acceding to the request of the appellant-petitioner on the ground that boundaries were not ascertainable.

¶33

2.1 It was the said order dated 15.02.2021 which was called in question in the writ petition before learned Single Judge. The petition came to be disposed of, with following observations,

¶34

“There is no infirmity in the dated 15^th February, 2021 (Annexure-E) passed by the respondent No.2, rejecting the application made by the petitioner on the ground that the schedule is not tallying with the existing land in question and also the same is based on the report made by Deputy Thasildar and the Revenue Inspector that the petitioner is not in the possession of the land question.

¶35

Unless the rights of the parties are established before the Civil Court, no interference is called for in this writ petition. However, it is open for the parties to make application for Survey of the land in question, if so advised.”

¶36

2.2 The present appeal addresses challenge to the said judgment and order dated 18.12.2023 passed by learned Single Judge.

¶37

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:31370-DB WA No. 116 of 2024

¶38

Atleast three aspects emerged on facts which are relevant and are rightly noted by learned Single Judge. First is that Original Suit No.101 of 2019 has been instituted by the petitioner seeking relief of declaration against respondent No.4 which involves the very subject matter land. The suit is pending before the competent civil Court. Secondly, respondent No.4 herein has also filed Original Suit No.2122 of 2006 seeking relief of permanent injunction in respect of the subject matter land. The said civil proceedings of civil suit are also pending.

¶39

3.1 Taking into account the aforesaid aspects, view is taken by learned Single Judge that there was no infirmity in the order dated 15.02.2021 passed by the Tahsildar rejecting the application of the petitioner. The rejection, as stated above, was on the ground that the schedule was not tallying with the existing land. It was further considered that the report of the Deputy Tahsildar and the Revenue Inspector showed that the petitioner was not in possession of the land in question, superadded by the fact that the petitioner has already instituted the aforesaid Civil Suit No.101 of 2019.

¶40

3.2 The third aspect is that in the impugned order, learned Single Judge has kept it open for the parties to make an application for survey of the land in question. The submission on part of the respondents made by learned Senior Advocate could be

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:31370-DB WA No. 116 of 2024

¶42

countenanced that, in view of this liberty reserved, no prejudice is caused to the appellant who can move an appropriate application in the suit proceedings and agitate his rights further.

¶43

It is evident therefore, that the rival claims in respect of this land property is subject matter of civil suit instituted by the petitioner which is for declaration and also the civil suit instituted by respondent No.4 which is for permanent injunction, relating to the same property. As the issue is pending for consideration in the civil proceedings, the application of the petitioner was justifiably not considered by the Revenue authorities. It goes without saying that mutation will abide by the outcome of the civil suit.

¶44

The order passed by learned Single Judge has not booked any error. The appeal is meritless and is accordingly dismissed.

¶45

In view of dismissal of the appeal, the interlocutory application

¶46

would not survive and it stands accordingly disposed of.

¶47

Sd/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶48

Sd/(K V ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶49

DDU/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Mr. Kulbandhu Ram Adarsh Sharma v. the Special Deputy Commissioner 1

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mr. Kulbandhu Ram Adarsh Sharma v. the Special Deputy Commissioner 1

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Vinod Kudva Vs Land Tribunal of Mangalore Taluk

Sri v Prasad Vs the State of Karnataka

Mallanna B Vs State of Karnataka

Managing Director Vs S Ramesh

M/S International Asset Reconstruction Company Limited Vs M/S Maruthi Technologies

Dr. Venugopal Vs the State of Karnataka