Dismissed

Sri. Basavaraju v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Dec 2024WP/18765/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 seeking quashing of an order dismissing his appeal against a civil decree and directing re-mutation of Katha. Court held that if the civil court's finding that the property is Grama Tana prevails, petitioner cannot be entitled to Katha, thus petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petition stands disposed of; no order for re-mutation of Katha.

Sri. Basavaraju Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:50970 WP No. 18765 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 18765 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. BASAVARAJU S/O LATE MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT K.G.SRINIVASPURA VILLAGE KASABAHOBLI, NELMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISRTICT -562 123.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. BABU T.C., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001

¶13

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

EXECUTIVE OFFICER HAVING OFFICE AT NELAMANGALA TALUK PANCHAYATH, NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123

¶15

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KANNEGOWDANAHALLAI GRAM PANCHAYATH, KASABA HOBLI, NELMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT -562 123.

¶16

THE SECRETARAY KANNEGOWDANAHALLAI GRAM PANCHAYATH, KASABA HOBLI, NELMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT -562 123.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT.POORTHI V., HCGP FOR R1

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:50970 WP No. 18765 of 2024

¶21

SRI.M.S.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE R2 TO R4)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) CALL FOR RECORDS (B) QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R2 IN CASE NO. 20/2022-23 DATED 23/02/2024 MARKED ANNEXURE-F. (C) DIRECT THE R3 AND R4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER DATED 16/01/2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-B TO RE-MUTATE THE KATHA OVER THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD OF TIME AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner is aggrieved by the second respondent's order dated 23.02.2024 [ Annexure-F ] in the proceeding in No.20/2022-23 [ which is an appeal under Section 269 of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 ]. The petitioner has had the advantage of the revenue entries for the two properties bearing Katha Nos.27/1 and 6/2 within the limits of Kannegowdanahalli Grama Panchayat, and based on such revenue entries the petitioner has commenced the suit in OS No.30/2004 as against

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:50970 WP No. 18765 of 2024

¶28

certain private individuals on the file of the Civil Judge [Jr. Dn.] and JMFC, Nelamangala [ the civil Court ]. The civil Court by the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2009 has dismissed the petitioner's suit.

¶29

The civil Court, in dismissing this petitioner's suit, has observed as follows amongst others.

¶30

"xxxxx further he also categorically admits that the suit property was in the possession of the villagers and further he also categorically admits that he filed suit to give trouble to the villagers intentionally, therefore the aforesaid admission made by the plaintiff itself is sufficient to hold that the suit property is belongs to the gramatana and the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and he has no right over the suit property and the revenue documents will not confer any title to the plaintiff."

¶31

It is after the judgment and decree, the revenue entry in No.27/1 is cancelled referring to such decree and the petitioner being aggrieved by such cancellation

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:50970 WP No. 18765 of 2024

¶34

has filed the subject appeal which stands dismissed by the impugned order.

¶35

Sri Babu T.C., the learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Spoorthi V., the learned High Court Government Pleader for the first respondent, and Sri.M.S.Devaraju, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4, are heard. Sri Babu T.C., the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the second respondent should have directed restoration of the revenue entries in Sy.No.27/1 because the revenue entries in No.6/2 continue to be in favour of the petitioner notwithstanding the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2009 in O.S.No.30/2004 and that the Panchayat Development Officer [ PDO ] of the Kannegowdanahalli Grama Panchayat has

¶36

acknowledged that the revenue entries for this property continues in favour of the petitioner.

¶37

However, the learned counsel cannot rebut the consequences that would be because of the

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:50970 WP No. 18765 of 2024

¶40

civil Court's observation as aforesaid. If the civil Court's finding that the subject property No.27/1 is a Grama Tana property prevails, the petitioner will not be entitled to Katha and therefore, there is no reason

¶41

for interference.

¶42

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶45

SA ct:Sr

Sri. Basavaraju v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Basavaraju v. 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

Hotel Paraag Limited Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Bindu Ramanan Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Smt M Shanthamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Joy Esther Chandra Vs the Commissioner of Bbmp

Shree Shree Mariswamymutt Hitarakshana and Jeernodhara Samithi Vs the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri. Sunil Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka