Dismissed

Smt T a Jagadamba v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC28 May 2024WP/2346/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash Deputy Commissioner orders affirming land acquired for industrial purposes. The Court upheld that revenue authorities lack jurisdiction over disputed title questions and noted the land was converted from agricultural to industrial use.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; Deputy Commissioner orders setting aside mutation entries affirmed; counter-application disposed of.

Smt T a Jagadamba Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF MAY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 2346 OF 2019 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SMT T A JAGADAMBA W/O SRI E KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/A NO.1, ADAKIMRANAHALLI VILLAGE 21ST K M, TUMKUR ROAD, MAKALI POST BANGALORE-562 123

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. SONA VAKKUND, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT K G ROAD, BANGALORE-560002

¶13

2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB -DIVISION BANGALORE -560005.

¶14

3 . THE SPECIAL TASHILDHAR BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE -560005.

¶15

4 . THE MYSORE STONEWARE PIPES AND POTTERIES LTD. THE COMPANY HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT 11TH CROSS 6TH MAIN

¶16

-2-

¶17

SADASHIVANAGAR BANGALORE-560 080 (REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS MR RAJEEV H RAMANAHALLI)

¶18

5 . SRI SRINIVASA REDDY S/O LATE PATEL ANJANAPPA A @ THIPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT VEERASHETTYHALLI VILALGE CHIKKABANAWARA POST YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-560005.

¶19

6 . SRI BABU S/O LATE VAHANABKHAN (VAHABKHAN) RESIDING AT NO.3088 GANIGARA PATE, 4TH WARD DODDABALLAPURA TOWN DODDABALLAPURA-580027

¶20

7 . SMT RAJAMMA MAJOR W/O KRISHNAREDDY

¶21

8 . SMT RATHNAMMA MAJOR W/O NARAYANASWAMY

¶22

9 . SMT SAVITHRAMMA MAJOR W/O NARAYANA REDDY

¶23

10 . SRI D C DEVARAJ MAJOR S/O CHIKKAPPA REDDY

¶24

11 . SMT V PADMA MAJOR

¶25

-3-

¶26

W/O CHIKKANNA REDDY RESPONDENTS No.7 TO 11 RESIDING AT CHIKKABANAVARA YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-560005

¶27

12 . SRI NARAYANA SWAMY SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

¶28

12(a) SMT THIPPAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS.

¶29

12(b) ANIL KUMAR MAJOR S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY AND SMT THIPPAMMA

¶30

12(c) SMT BHAGYAMMA D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY AND SMT THIPPAMMA

¶31

12(d) SMT RATHNAMMA D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY AND SMT THIPPAMMA RESPONDENTS 12A TO 12D RESIDING AT NO.705 VEERASHETTY HALLI CHIKKABANAVARA VILLAGE BANGALORE-560 090

¶32

... RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 SRI. UDAYA HOLLA., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. VYASA KIRAN UPADHYA B.R., ADVOCATE FOR R4 V/O DT. 24/07/2023 WP IS DISMISSED AS AGAINST R5 TO R12(d))

¶34

-4-

¶35

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURES-A H TO AL PASSED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER R-1 HEREIN IN R.P.NO.32/2015-16 RP NO.205/2012-13, R.P.NO.206/2012-13 AND RP NO.207/2012-13 DATED 14.12.2018 AND ETC.

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 04.04.2024 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order dated 14.12.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District in Revision Petition Nos.205 to 207/2012-13 and R.P.No.32/2015-16. Four separate revision petitions were filed by respondent No.4 herein calling in question orders passed by the Special Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk and orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Sub-Division in respect of claims raised by the other private respondents to set aside revenue entries maintained in favour of respondent No.4 and to enter their respective names in the land records.

¶39

-5-

¶40

It is hardly disputed that an extent of 118 acres of land in various survey numbers situated at Soladevanahalli Village and Chikkabanavara Village were notified and acquired by His Highness the Maharaja of Mysore under preliminary notification dated 24.06.1938 and final notification dated 24.06.1938, while directing the Assistant Commissioner to exercise the powers of the Deputy Commissioner to take possession of the acquired lands on expiry of 15 days from the date of publication of notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The acquisition notifications were issued for the benefit of respondent No.4 - M/s. The Mysore Stoneware Pipes and Potteries Ltd., for setting up a manufacturing unit to manufacture stoneware pipes for drawing sewage and sanitary lines in the then State of Mysore. At Annexure ‘R8’ filed along with the statement of objections of respondent No.4, the statement of compensation paid to the claimants is furnished. It is the contention of respondent No.4 that

¶41

-6-

¶42

the industry was established and for the first time in the south of India, respondent No.4 commenced production of chemical stoneware in the year 1950.

¶43

Long after the establishment of the industry at the

¶44

hands of respondent No.4, claims were made by the legal heirs of the erstwhile land owners seeking revenue entries in their names, on the ground that the acquisition proceedings did not go through; that subsequently occupancy rights were conferred under the provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 and the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Attention of this Court was drawn by learned Senior Counsel Sri Udaya Holla, appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent to an order passed by this Court in W.P.No.5271/1995 dated 16.01.2001 filed by the fourth respondent raising a challenge to one such order passed under the provisions of Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961. It was held that the competent authority has not held any enquiry as

¶45

-7-

¶46

required under the Rules and has proceeded to pass the order without even notifying all persons interested and more particularly the person in possession of the land. Consequently, the order of regrant was set aside remanding the matter back to the competent authority to reconsider the matter afresh. Consequent to the remand, the competent authority held an enquiry and came to a conclusion that since the lands were acquired by the Government for the benefit of the fourth respondent during the year 1938-39, the provisions of the Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 would not apply. Accordingly, the application was dismissed. Similarly, attention of this Court was drawn to Annexure ‘R12’ which is an order passed by the Land Tribunal, Bangalore North Taluk on a petition filed by Smt. Rajamma and Others, who are respondents No.7 to 12 herein. The Land Tribunal, by its order dated 03.06.2002 dismissed the claim on the ground that the lands were not agricultural lands and question of tenancy

¶47

-8-

¶48

would not arise. Smt. Rajamma and others filed W.P.No.32632/2002, challenging the orders passed by the Land Tribunal. However, the writ petition was dismissed on 16.01.2009 and the writ appeal filed by Smt.Rajamma and others in W.A.No.424/2009 was also dismissed on 13.01.2010.

¶49

In another round of litigation at the hands of one Sri. Ramadas and others in W.P.No.30999/2009 raising a challenge to the acquisition notifications dated 24.06.1938 as having lapsed was also dismissed by this Court on 24.11.2009.

¶50

That being the position, Smt.Rajamma and others approached the Special Tahsildar, invoking Sections 24, 25 and 127 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short ‘Act 1964’) to set aside mutation entries that were made in favour of the fourth respondent. It is recorded by the Tahsildar that although notice is issued to the respondent, the respondent has not appeared and the

¶51

-9-

¶52

respondent was not able to substantiate by producing documentary evidence to show how it acquired right, title and interest over the land in question. Accordingly, the Tahsildar proceeded to allow the application and directed the removal of the name of the fourth respondent from the land records while directing entry of the names of the legal heirs of Smt.Rajamma and others in the land records.

¶53

It is the allegation of the fourth respondent that although the petitioner was aware that the lands belonged to the fourth respondent and its name was entered in the land records, nevertheless immediately after the orders were passed by the Tahsildar on 24.01.2007, the petitioner got executed sale deeds dated 03.04.2007, 10.01.2007, 23.03.2007 and 11.01.2007 in her favour. In fact, some of the sale deeds were executed even before the orders were passed by the Tahsildar.

¶54

The challenge raised by the fourth respondent before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of

¶55

-10-

¶56

the Act, 1964 was rejected on 01.07.2010 consequent to which the fourth respondent filed Revision Petitions before the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner passed the impugned orders. The Deputy Commissioner, after securing the records found that the name of the fourth respondent was entered in the land records, index of land etc., in terms of M.R.No.4/1976-77. It was found that the lands in question have been converted from agricultural to industrial purposes. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner proceeded to set aside the orders passed by the Tahsildar as well as the Assistant Commissioner.

¶57

This Court is not impressed with the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner who sought to contend that by order dated 18.09.1941, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Mysore cancelled the acquisition proceedings. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that several orders have been passed by this Court negating the contentions of the land owners and

¶58

-11-

¶59

subsequently their legal heirs who sought to contend that they acquired title in terms of the orders passed by the Land Tribunal or the competent authority conferring occupancy rights or regranting land in their favour. In one writ petition, a challenge raised to the acquisition proceedings were also considered and rejected. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner.

¶60

The learned Senior Counsel Sri Udaya Holla, is right in his submission that in terms of the well established position of law, as affirmed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Jayamma and others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in ILR 2020 KAR 1449 , disputed questions of title cannot be considered by the revenue authorities. Primarily, the Tahsildar blatantly erred in entertaining such an application at the hands of Smt.Rajamma and others. In fact, the Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to entertain such an application where claim

¶61

-12-

¶62

was made by Smt.Rajamma and others to set aside mutation entry made in favour of the fourth respondent. Such a challenge could be raised only before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Act, 1964. This Court is also of the opinion that having regard to the admitted fact that the lands in question are not agricultural in nature, since an industry was established consequent to the acquisition made at the hands of the State of Mysore, such a claim regarding revenue entries made by Smt.Rajamma and others was required to be rejected on that ground alone.

¶63

As a result, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶64

I.A. No.2/2019 does not survive for consideration and

¶65

accordingly the same stands disposed of.

¶66

Sd/JUDGE

¶67

JT/CT: JL

Smt T a Jagadamba v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt T a Jagadamba v. the Deputy Commissioner

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

Sri M Nanjunde Gowda Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Op Societies

Maimuna, Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Philomina Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs. Geeta Sanjay Vhatkar Vs the Joint Commissioner (Mahadevapura Zone)

Smt Virajamma Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Sansita Holdings Private Limited Vs Ms Shobha Rathnam