Allowed

Mr Channamuniyappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Jan 2024WP/14847/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of endorsements blocking transactions on land purchased from a grantee of occupancy rights under the Mysore Inams Abolition Act. Following an identical order of a co-ordinate bench, the court quashed the impugned endorsements qua the subject property.

What did the court decide?

Endorsement No.Sa.Pa.ADM3/LND/31/2006-07 dated 20.04.2021 and Communication No.RGN/221/2021-22 dated 23.08.2021 quashed qua the subject property.

Mr Channamuniyappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:2365 WP No. 14847 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 14847 OF 2023 (GM-ST/RN)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR CHANNAMUNIYAPPA S/O MUTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, PEDDAMAPALYA VILLAGE, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU – 562130.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR

¶11

SRI. SANJAY G.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Location: HIGH HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS COURT OF AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT KARNATAKA 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR SRI MALAIMAHADESHWARA VARTHABHAVANA ALUR VENKATARAO ROAD CHAMARAJAPETE BANGALORE - 560018 REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶14

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:2365 WP No. 14847 of 2023

¶17

COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS KANDAAYA BHAVAN, 8TH FLOOR, K.G. ROADM, BENAGLURU - 560040.

¶18

THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR NO.12, 1^ST FLOOR 1^ST MAIN ROAD JAYANAGAR

¶19

4^TH BLOCK EAST BANGALORE – 560 011.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.SPOORTHY HEGDE., HCGP)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT VIDE NO.SA.PA.NO. ADM3/ LND/ 31/2006-07 DATED 20/04/2021 (ANNEXURE-K) ISSUED BY THE R1 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT; QUASHING THE COMMUNICATION VIDE NO RGN/221/2021-22 DATED 23/08/2021 (ANNEXURE-L) COMMUNICATED TO THE R2.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayers:

¶26

“a) Quashing the Impugned Endorsement vide No.Sa.Pa. No: ADM3/LND/31/2006-07

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:2365 WP No. 14847 of 2023

¶28

20.04.2021 (Annexure-K) issued by the 1^st Respondent; to the 2^nd Respondent;

¶29

b) Quashing the Communication vide No.RGN/221/2021-22 dated 23.08.2021 (Annexure-L) communicated to the 2nd Respondent;

¶30

c) Directing the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to transact on the Property belonging to him;”

¶31

The narration of facts in the case at hand

¶32

would not be required in the light of the fact that there are two orders passed i.e., one by this Court and the

¶33

other by a Co-ordinate Bench answering an identical issue brought before the Court. It would suffice if these orders are quoted and similar relief is granted to the petitioner in the case at hand as well. This Court in W.P. No.17832/2023 and W.P.No.17834/2023 has passed the following order:

¶34

“3. The narration of the facts in the case at hand would not be required, as it is already

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:2365 WP No. 14847 of 2023

¶37

been considered by a Co-ordinate Bench and the present petition is an offshoot of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench. The Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.5111/2022 disposed on 25.08.2022 between the same parties has held as follows:

¶38

"The competent authority by order dated 5.7.1958 granted occupancy rights in respect of the property bearing Sy.No.129 measuring 4 acres 26 guntas, Sy.No.130 measuring 26 guntas and Sy.No.131 measuring 6 acres 11.05 guntas in all totaling 11 acres 23.05 guntas situated at Kurubarahalli village, Thavarekere Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk under the provisions of the Mysore Inams Abolition Act, 1954 in favour of oneN.S. Narayana Rao.

¶39

2. The grantee got the subject land converted for residential purpose under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and sold the subject land in favour of the petitioner by executing the registered sale deeds dated 29.8.2011, 2.6.2012 and 28.07.2012. The petitioner submitted an application with the respondent No.3 under Section 17 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 for approval of residential layout plan.

¶40

3. The respondent No.3 approved the residential layout plan subject to certain terms and conditions and also commencement certificate was issued on 25.02.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner commenced the formation of the layout and before completion of the layout, the respondent No.3 released 60% of the sites formed in the layout in favour of the petitioner. After completing the formation of the layout, the petitioner submitted an application with respondent No.3 for

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:2365 WP No. 14847 of 2023

¶43

releasing the remaining 40% of the sites formed in the layout.

¶44

4. The respondent No.3 issued an endorsement dated 16.02.2022 stating that the remaining 40% of the sites cannot be released at this stage since the respondent No.1 has communicated not to release the said sites stating that the grant made in favour of the vendor of the petitioner was not in accordance with law. Taking exception of the same, this petition is filed.

¶45

5. During the pendency of this writ petition, the respondent No.1 issued an endorsement dated 17.6.2022, rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner to issue NOC for release of remaining 40% of the sites on the ground that the petitioner has not established his right over the subject property. The petitioner challenged the said endorsement by filing an application for amendment and the same has been allowed.

¶46

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has purchased the subject land from his vendor who had acquired the title over the subject land by virtue of order dated 5.7.1958 passed under the provisions of the Mysore Inams Abolition Act, 1954, granting occupancy rights in favour of his vendor. Hence, he submits that the grant order made in favour of the vendor of the petitioner is binding on the respondent No.1 and the said impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.1 refusing to grant NOC is impermissible.

¶47

7. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2 submits that the occupancy rights granted in favour of the vendor of the petitioner was not in accordance with law and the subject land belongs to the State Government by virtue of

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:2365 WP No. 14847 of 2023

¶50

the gift deed dated 31.03.1939 executed by Smt.Dwaraka Bhai Vendantham. Hence, he submits that the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.1 cannot be faulted with and the same does not warrant any interference.

¶51

8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submits that the respondent No.1 having objected to the release of the sites stating that the land belongs to the Endowment Department, the application submitted by the petitioner is rightly kept in abeyance which does not call for any interference.

¶52

9. I have examined the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶53

10. In pursuance of the occupancy rights granted, the name of the vendor was entered in the revenue records and the land was converted for residential purpose under section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Thereafter, the petitioner has purchased the subject land from the grantee by virtue of registered sale deeds. The respondent No.1 is claiming right over the subject land by virtue of gift deed executed in the year 1939. However the occupancy rights of the subject land were granted in favor of the vendor of the petitioner under the Mysore Personal Inams Abolition Act. The rights which were alleged to have existed in favor of respondent No.1 prior to commencement of Act, 1954 automatically stood extinguished after the lands vested with Government free from all encumbrances and also after occupancy rights were granted in favor of Inamdars/Tenants. The order granting occupancy rights has attained finality and binding on the respondent No.1. Hence, the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.1 refusing to grant NOC to the petitioner for release of 40% of the sites by

¶54

¶55

NC: 2024:KHC:2365 WP No. 14847 of 2023

¶56

the respondent No.3 is one without authority of law and there is no requirement for obtaining NOC by the petitioner from respondent No.1.

¶57

In view of the aforesaid, I pass the following:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶60

ii) The impugned endorsement dated 16.02.2022 issued by the respondent No.3 at Annexure-R and impugned endorsement dated 17.06.2022 issued by the respondent No.1 at Annexure-T are hereby quashed.

¶61

iii) The respondent No.3 is hereby directed to release 40% of the sites in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject land after satisfying other requirements of law.

¶62

iv) The said exercise shall be concluded within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order."

¶63

Learned HCGP, who had submitted on the last

¶64

date that the State is preparing a writ appeal right from

¶65

the date of the order i.e., 25.08.2022, submits that the State is still in the preparation of such appeal to be filed, despite 18 months having passed. This Court had also observed that act of the State fringes on the borders of contempt. The State Government wanting to prepare the

¶66

¶67

NC: 2024:KHC:2365 WP No. 14847 of 2023

¶68

writ appeal would not mean that the directions in the writ petition had been eclipsed or extinguished. They are neither eclipsed nor extinguished as of today. Therefore, I deem it proper to follow the same and grant the same relief which has been granted to the petitioners in the writ petitions referred to supra.

¶69

In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the petition

¶70

deserves to succeed by the following:

¶71

ORDER

¶72

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶73

(ii)The impugned endorsement bearing No. Sa. Pa. No. ADM3/LND/31/2006-07 dated 20.04.2021 [AnnexureK] issued by the first respondent and the Communication bearing No.RGN/221/2021-22 dated 23.08.2021 [Annexure-L] issued by the second respondent are quashed qua the subject property.

¶74

JUDGE

¶75

Sd/-

¶76

Mr Channamuniyappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Channamuniyappa v. the State of Karnataka

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

Sri H.J. Rajesh Gowda, Vs Canara Bank

Sri G Thimmappa Vs Syndicate Bank

Mallayya Guttedar Vs the District Registrar

Sri Maruthi Meenugarara Sahakar Sangha Baguru Ni Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Rama Hitech Power Tech Vs the Authorized Officer City Union Bank Ltd.

Tasniya Tabassum Vs the Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd.