Disposed

P Veeranagouda S/O P Ramanagouda v. the Tahasildar

Karnataka HC12 Jun 2024WP/101181/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Serious question involves mutation of ownership in government land where vendee had only possessory rights. Court notes State is owner but directs entry of petitioners as occupants to protect possession and restore power connections pending lawful dispossessory proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of power connection; Entry of petitioners as occupants in revenue and municipal records while State ownership retained; State directed to seek lawful possession.

P Veeranagouda S/O P Ramanagouda Vs the Tahasildar — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7823 WP No. 101181 of 2024 C/W WP No. 107848 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.101181 OF 2024 (GM-KEB)

¶8

C/W

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.107848 OF 2023 (KLR–RES)

¶10

IN WP NO.101181 OF 2024

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

P. VEERANAGOUDA S/O. P. RAMANAGOUDA

¶13

AGE: 43 YEARS R/O. 5^TH WARD, GOULI STREET HARAPANAHALLI-583 131 VIJAYANAGAR DIST.

¶14

KATTI SHRIHARSHA S/O. KATTI RANGANATH AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O. HARAPANAHALLI-583 131 VIJAYANAGAR DIST.

¶15

ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶16

D. HARISH S/O. RAJGOPAL DANDIN AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O. BANGARAPETE HARAPANAHALLI-583131 VIJAYANAGAR DIST.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI.S.S. BETURMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7823 WP No. 101181 of 2024 C/W WP No. 107848 of 2023

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE TAHASILDAR HARAPANAHALLI TALUK HARAPANAHALLI-583131 VIJAYANAGAR DIST

¶22

THE CHIEF OFFICER HARAPANAHALLI TOWN MUNICIPALITY HARAPANAHALLI-583131 VIJAYANAGAR DIST

¶23

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (V) COM. O & M SUB DIVISION BESCOM, HARAPPANAHALLI-583131

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., ADV. FOR R2; SRI. B.S. KAMATE, ADV. FOR R3)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO RESTORE THE ELECTRICAL CONNECTIONS TO THE ELECTRICAL METERS RR NO. 11886, RR NO.11887, HH 50313 AND HP 681 BELONGS TO THE PETITIONERS; ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION OR ORDER THE PETITIONER IS FOUND ENTITLED TO.

¶27

IN WP NO.107848 OF 2023

¶28

BETWEEN:

¶29

P. VEERANAGOUDA S/O. P. RAMANAGOUDA AGE: 43 YEARS R/O. 5^TH WARD, GOULI STREET HARAPANAHALLI-583 131 VIJAYANAGAR DIST

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7823 WP No. 101181 of 2024 C/W WP No. 107848 of 2023

¶31

M.CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O. MAHALINGAPPA AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: R/O. 12^TH WARD KASHIMATH EXTENSION HARAPANAHALLI-583 131 VIJAYANAGAR DIST (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFITS NOT CLAIMED)

¶32

…PETITIONERS

¶33

(BY SRI.S.S. BETURMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶34

AND:

¶35

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001

¶36

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT HOSAPETE-583 101

¶37

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SUB-DIVISION HARAPANAHALLI – 583 131

¶38

DIST: VIJAYANAGAR

¶39

THE TAHASILDAR HARAPANAHALLI-583 131 DIST: VIJAYANAGAR

¶40

THE CHIEF OFFICER HARAPANAHALLI TOWN MUNICIPALITY HARAPANAHALLI-583 131 DIST: VIJAYANAGAR

¶41

…RESPONDENTS

¶42

(BY SRI.V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1-R4; SRI.GANGADHAR J.M., ADV. FOR R5)

¶43

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7823 WP No. 101181 of 2024 C/W WP No. 107848 of 2023

¶44

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH ORDER BEARING NO.LND/CR/: 03/2022-23 DATED 10/11/2022 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE- VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH ORDER BEARING NO.BHU. KAM. APPEAL/168/2022-23 DATED 23/11/2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-L AND ETC.

¶45

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶46

COMMON ORDER

¶47

The captioned writ petition No.107848/2023 is filed by the petitioners assailing the order passed by respondent No.3 – Assistant Commissioner, who has directed to mutate the name of the State to the petition property as per Annexure-J and the same is confirmed by the respondent No.2 – Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 23.11.2023 as per Annexure-L. These two orders are questioned in W.P.No.107848/2023.

¶48

The captioned writ petition No.101181/2024 is filed by the petitioners seeking mandamus directing

¶49

- 5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7823 WP No. 101181 of 2024 C/W WP No. 107848 of 2023

¶50

respondent No.3 to restore the electrical connections to the Electrical Meters RR No.11886, RR No.11887, HH 50313 and HP 681 belongs to the petitioners.

¶51

Heard learned counsel appearing for the

¶52

petitioners.

¶53

The subject matter of the petition is 30 cents in the land bearing Sy. No.539/B totally measuring 1.70 acre situated at Harapanahalli Village. At para No.1 of the writ petition, the petitioners have admitted in unequivocal terms that the said land is the Government Land and the petitioners are tracing their right and title through one Shiralakoppad Hucchavva. The petitioners assert that the said Shiralakoppad Hucchavva is in possession of a portion of the property i.e., 30 cents in the land bearing Sy. No.539/B and she has perfected her title over the said portion of the property. The petitioners have further pleaded that their vendor by name Shiralakoppad Hucchavva was compelled to file a bare suit for injunction in O.S.No.166/1989. The said suit was decreed. The

¶54

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7823 WP No. 101181 of 2024 C/W WP No. 107848 of 2023

¶55

petitioners further contend that after the death of Shiralakoppad Hucchavva, her legal heirs have sold the petition property to petitioner No.2 under registered sale deed dated 26.08.1992. The petitioners are asserting that they have acquired title under registered sale deed and therefore, they are entitled to retain their names in the ownership column in the property extracts. The petitioners are further asserting that they have converted the said land for commercial purpose. After conversion of the said land, petitioner No.2 has sold an extent of 1800 sq. ft in favour of petitioner No.1 under registered sale deed dated 02.07.2010. The petitioners based on the sale deed submitted an application and therefore, claimed that name of petitioner No.1 is mutated in the records of respondent No.5 i.e., Town Municipality, Harapanahalli. Petitioner No.2 is also issued with E-swathu in his name. Petitioner No.2 claimed that after purchasing the property, he obtained permission from respondent No.5 for construction of a residential building.

¶56

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7823 WP No. 101181 of 2024 C/W WP No. 107848 of 2023

¶57

The petitioners are aggrieved by action of respondent No.4, who has submitted a report addressed to the Assistant Commissioner citing judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.166/1989 and has recommended to the Assistant Commissioner to take appropriate action to get state’s name mutated to the property extract pertaining to the petition premises. The Assistant Commissioner on receipt of report has initiated suo-moto proceedings and as per the order dated 10.11.2022 vide Annexure-J, the Assistant Commissioner has ordered to delete the names of the petitioners and enter the name of the State. The said order is confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner.

¶58

On examining the records, it is clearly evident that petitioners’ vendors’ right is decided both before the competent Civil Court and even under the writ jurisdiction. The suit filed by Shiralakoppad Hucchavva in O.S.No.166/1989 was decreed and petitioners’ vendors’ possessory rights were protected. The competent Civil

¶59

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7823 WP No. 101181 of 2024 C/W WP No. 107848 of 2023

¶60

Court restrained the State from dispossessing the plaintiffs. The operative portion of the judgment clearly indicates that State was, however, reserved with liberty to seek possession in accordance with law.

¶61

In the writ proceedings before this Court at the instance of the petitioners herein, this Court has also held that the respondent –State is entitled to take action in the manner known to law. In the writ petition, the present petitioners herein sought a mandamus against the respondents not to demolish the building of the petitioners without due process of law and the same is evident from the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.59721-722/2014 as per Annexure-L.

¶62

If these significant details are taken into consideration, this Court has noticed that there is no dispute that the State is the owner of the petition property. This Court has also noticed that one Shiralakoppad Hucchavva, who had only possessory rights, filed an injunction suit and her possessory right

¶63

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7823 WP No. 101181 of 2024 C/W WP No. 107848 of 2023

¶64

was protected. However, after the death of Shiralakoppad Hucchavva, her legal heirs, who had no right over the petition property, have sold 30 cents in Sy. No.539/B, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition. The legal heirs of Shiralakoppad Hucchavva have sold the petition property to petitioner No.2 under registered sale deed dated 26.08.1992 and after conversion of the land, petitioner No.2 sold an extent of land measuring 1800 sq. ft. to petitioner No.1 under registered sale deed dated 02.07.2010. It is also noticed that these petitioners based on the registered sale deed have altered the nature of the

¶65

suit property and have constructed a house in the petition property.

¶66

It is quite unfortunate to note that the State being the custodian of the Public property has not taken proper measures to secure the property. If the State’s title is not in dispute, the appropriate measures were required to be taken by the State to secure possession by filing a suit before the competent Civil Court. Without

¶67

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7823 WP No. 101181 of 2024 C/W WP No. 107848 of 2023

¶68

10 -

¶69

availing proper remedy available under the common law, all shortcut measures are adopted by the State contrary to

¶70

the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.59721-722/2014 and also contrary to the judgment rendered by the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.166/1989.

¶71

Though petitioners cannot assert title over these

¶72

properties, however, they are entitled to protect their possession unless possession is secured by the State in the manner known to law. Based on these sale deeds, the petitioners are not entitled to get their names mutated to the property extracts. But, however, their possession need to be protected and therefore, in the property extracts, respondent Nos.3 to 5 are bound to indicate the petitioners’ possession in the cultivators’ column/ occupiers’ column.

¶73

The petitioners till they are dispossessed are entitled to get the power connection and other civic amenities. The Authorities cannot high handedly

¶74

11 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7823 WP No. 101181 of 2024 C/W WP No. 107848 of 2023

¶75

disconnect the power and other civic amenities without securing possession in accordance with law.

¶76

With these above observations, this Court proceeds to pass the following;

¶77

ORDER

¶78

(i) The writ petition filed in W.P.No.107848/2023 is disposed off with certain directions.

¶79

(ii) Respondent Nos.3 and 5 in W.P.No.107848/2023 shall reflect name of petitioner No.1 in the cultivators’ column/occupiers’ column both in the revenue records and also property falling within the domein of respondent No.5 – Municipality. However, in the ownership column, the State’s name shall be reflected.

¶80

(iii) The connected Writ Petition No.101181/2024 is disposed off directing respondent No.3 to restore the power connection within a period

¶81

12 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7823 WP No. 101181 of 2024 C/W WP No. 107848 of 2023

¶82

of four weeks from the date of receipt of order copy.

¶83

(iv) It is open for Respondent/ state to take possession in accordance with law.

¶84

(v) Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.

¶85

Sd/JUDGE

¶86

NBM

¶87

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

P Veeranagouda S/O P Ramanagouda v. the Tahasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P Veeranagouda S/O P Ramanagouda v. the Tahasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinayak Vs Agricultural

Pooja D/O Basappa Gaddeppanavar Vs the Department of Backward Classes Welfare Department

M.Anees S/O M.Vali Basha Vs the Aribtrator Chennai

Karnataka Krushi Sangha Vs the District Registrar

Balu S/O Bomanna Patil Vs Gangu W/O Laxman Bhekane

Smt Pushpalata W/O Peerappa Chippalakatti Vs Smt Shivalila W/O Shivaling Ludabude