Allowed

Sri Varadaraju v. Executive Officer

Karnataka HC27 Nov 2024WP/14954/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an order cancelling revenue entries in their favor. The High Court quashed the impugned order, noting the officer ignored a civil decree and failed to verify property dimensions, directing restoration of entries.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 02.03.2023 quashed; second respondent directed to restore revenue entries in favor of petitioners within four weeks.

Sri Varadaraju Vs Executive Officer — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:48509 WP No. 14954 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 14954 OF 2023 (LB-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI VARADARAJU S/O LATE KENGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶7

SMT VARADAMMA D/O LATE KENGAIAH, W/O THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶8

BOTH ARE R/AT ARJUNA HALLI VILLAGE, AMRUTHUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR 572101.

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI. ANANDA V., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYAT, KUNIGAL, TUMKUR DIVISION, TUMKUR 572101.

¶14

PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER YADAVANI GRAMA PANCHAYATHI AMRUTHUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 111.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:48509 WP No. 14954 of 2023

¶17

SRI ANNAIAH S/O LATE BORAIAH, R/AT ARJUNAHALLI VILLAGE, AMRUTHUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 111.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY MS. MOUNIKA M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. KRISHNA MURTHY M.R., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO CANCEL THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 IN VPC NO.11/201112/277 DATED 2.3.2023 AS PER ANNX-J; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO EFFECT KATHA AND MUTATION IN FAVOUR OF THE P-2 AND CONTINUE THE EARLIER MUTATION IN THE NAME OF THE P-2.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:48509 WP No. 14954 of 2023

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioners assert ownership of the property bearing Katha No. 86 [assessment No.138] measuring East to West - 40 feet and North to South - 60 feet, bounded on the East by Sri Kadaguppaiah @ Huchaiah's property, West by Varadaiah @ Bajjaiah's property, North by Kullaiah's property and South by a Government Road [the subject property] . The petitioners are aggrieved by the first respondent's Order dated 02.03.2023 in VPC No.11/2011-12/277 [Annexure-J]. The first respondent’s impugned order is in appeal under Section 269 of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 [‘the Act’].

¶27

The first respondent, by this impugned order dated 02.03.2023, has cancelled the revenue entries [Katha in No. 86] for the subject property in favour of the petitioners directing the second respondent to give the benefit of such entries to the

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:48509 WP No. 14954 of 2023

¶30

third respondent. The first respondent's reason for the aforesaid order is only because the third respondent relies upon the Sale Deed dated 12.05.1986. Mr. V Ananda, the learned counsel for the petitioners, and Ms. Mounika M, the learned counsel for the first and second respondents, are heard for final disposal of this petition.

¶31

This Court must, at the outset, observe that the proceedings before the first respondent is after the culmination of a civil dispute between the petitioners and the third respondent in O.S. No.254/2001 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge [Jr. Dn.,] Kunigal. The civil Court in this suit has examined whether the third respondent can dispute the petitioners' title to the subject property relying upon the Sale Deed dated 12.05.1986 executed by Smt. Rangamma and her sons. While answering this question, the civil Court has decreed the petitioners' suit holding that the third respondent, who claims

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:48509 WP No. 14954 of 2023

¶34

title and possession of the property measuring East to West - 30 feet and North to South - 35 feet, has not established either title or possession of the subject property. The civil Court's judgement in

¶35

favour of the petitioners is dated 16.04.2007.

¶36

This Court must opine that the first respondent, without considering the import of this judgement and decree, could not have reversed the revenue entries in favour of the petitioners for the subject property only because of the Sale Deed dated 12.05.1986. There must be interference on this ground alone. Further, this Court must opine that the first respondent could not have passed the impugned order without examining whether the revenue entries in Katha No.86 relate to the property that measures 40 feet x 60 feet or 30 feet x 35 feet. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

[a] The petition is allowed.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:48509 WP No. 14954 of 2023

¶41

[b] The first respondent's impugned Order dated 02.03.2023 [Annexure - J] is quashed.

¶42

[c] The second respondent is directed to restore the revenue entries for the subject property in No.86 in favour of the petitioner at the earliest upon receipt of a certified copy of the order, and in any event within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶43

[d] The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file a certified copy of this order with the second respondent within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶44

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶45

AN/-

Sri Varadaraju v. Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Varadaraju v. Executive Officer

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

M/S. Samriddhi Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner, Bbmp

M.M.Anandaram Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Sri Ravi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri John David Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunath Babu K Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Kekoo S Sethna Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike