Disposed

H. C. Boraiah v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC12 Jun 2024WP/269/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition wherein the petitioner sought to quash an order regarding land title. The Court held that disputes involving findings on Sale Deeds and encumbrance certificates are questions of fact and law requiring adjudication by a competent Civil Court. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of as the petitioner must establish his right over the pr

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of; the petitioner is directed to establish his right over the property before a competent Civil Court.

H. C. Boraiah Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:20675 WP NO.269 OF 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.269 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

H.C. BORAIAH S/O CHANNAKESHWAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O HOSAMALIGE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. KANTHARAJAPPA M.G., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA

¶13

Location: High

¶14

Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

¶17

THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, CHITRADURGA TALUK - 577 501.

¶18

MANIBAI W/O LATE SHABABULAL.

¶19

RAMANALAL S/O LATE SHABABULAL.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:20675 WP NO.269 OF 2023

¶22

6. SURESH KUMAR S/O LATE SHABABULAL.

¶23

RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6 ARE R/O BEHIND D.R.M HOSPITAL, CHITRADURGA TOWN - 577 501.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN R.A(A):3/2020 DATED 30^TH MARCH, 2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2 PASSED IN R.A. NO.207/2015-16 DATED 06^TH SEPTEMBER, 2019 VIDE ANNEXURE- A; AND ETC.

¶27

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

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

Sri. Harisha A.S., learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents 1 to 3.

¶30

In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 30^th March, 2022 (Annexure-B) passed by the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner in RA(A):3/2020; inter alia sought for confirming the order dated 06^th

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:20675 WP NO.269 OF 2023

¶33

September, 2019 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent

¶34

No.2-Assistant Commissioner in R.A. No.207/2015-16.

¶35

Heard Sri. Kantharajappa M.G., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Harisha A.S., learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for

¶36

respondents 1 to 3.

¶37

Sri. Kantharajappa M.G. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the grandfather of the petitioner had purchased the land in question on 01^st August, 1928 from one Channabasappa and thereafter, there is no encumbrance in respect of land in question as the grandfather of the petitioner was owner

¶38

in possession of land and same was continued by the petitioner. Accordingly, he submitted that the finding recorded by the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner in impugned order is incorrect.

¶39

Per contra, Sri. Harisha A.S., learned Additional

¶40

Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:20675 WP NO.269 OF 2023

¶43

submits that the disputed question of facts are involved in this writ petition pertinent to the various Sale Deeds executed by the parties. Accordingly, he sought for confirmation of finding recorded by the respondent No.1 in the impugned order.

¶44

In the light of submission made by learned

¶45

counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by respondents 1 and 2. Taking into consideration the fact that, both the respondents 1 and 2 have rightly held that the matter is of Civil in nature, I am of the view that the petitioner has to establish his right over the property in question. The finding recorded by the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner in the impugned order dated 30^th March, 2022 (Annexure-B) would indicate that the grandfather of the petitioner-B. Chinobaiah had purchased the land in question on 01^st August, 1928 from one Channabasappa

¶46

and thereafter, as per the encumbrance certificate from 01^st April, 1928 to 31^st August, 2003, the grandfather of

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:20675 WP NO.269 OF 2023

¶49

the petitioner had sold the land in question in favour of D. Halappa on 11^th August, 1964 and further, two more Sale Deeds have been executed by the respective vendors. Therefore, the finding recorded by the respondent No.1Deputy Commissioner is just and proper and it is for the petitioner to establish his right over the property in question before the competent Civil Court to determine the title over the property in question. With this observation, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

ARK

H. C. Boraiah v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H. C. Boraiah 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Mohini Rai Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Puttamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Muniyamma Vs the State of Karnataka

M Gopala Krishna Rao Vs State of Karnataka

Vanaja Shedthi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Niroop D J Vs the Regional Joint Director