Allowed

Lakshmamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Mar 2024WP/2772/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition challenging the mutation of Government name in revenue records. The court held that the mutation lacked authority due to absence of vesting proceedings and records, rejecting the State's reliance on delay as a ground when substantive rights were violated.

What did the court decide?

Deletion of 'Government' name from revenue records and restoration of the petitioner's brother Krishnappa's name.

Lakshmamma Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:10955 WP No. 2772 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 2772 OF 2020 (ULC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

LAKSHMAMMA SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HER LEGAL HEIR JAYALAKSHMAMMA DAUGHTER OF LATE LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT AMRUTHALLI VILLAGE, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU.

¶9

MRS. BHARATHI D/O LATE NARAYANAMMA RESIDING AT NO.7, 1^ST FLOOR 2ND MAIN ROAD, CPV 1ST BLOCK, ANUGRAHA, R.T. NAGAR, GANGADHAR, BENGALURU.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. GAUTHAM S. BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER URBAN LAND CEILING, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-560001.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:10955 WP No. 2772 of 2020

¶19

TAHSILDHAR YELAHANKA TALUK BENGALURU, KARNATAKA.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AAG A/W SMT. HEMALATHA V., AGA)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT URBAN CEILING REGULATION ACT 1976 IS ABATED IN SO FAR AS SY.NO.108/2 MEASURING 10 GUNTAS SITUATED AT AMRUTHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGLAURU NORTH TALUK AND CONSEQUENTLY AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Petitioners assert to be the owner of the property bearing Sy.No.108/2, measuring 10 guntas situated in Amruthalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru.

¶26

The subject property was the Inam land, and brother of petitioners No.1 and 2 namely Sri Krishnappa, during his life time applied to the Special Deputy Commissioner for abolition of Inams, to register his name as occupant of the schedule property, and in pursuance of the same, the Special Deputy Commissioner for abolition of Inams, confirmed the occupancy rights in favor of Krishnappa with respect of the schedule property under Section 5 of the Mysore (personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:10955 WP No. 2772 of 2020

¶29

Given the circumstances, the name of the Government was mutated in the revenue records stating that the subject land is vested with the Government under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short "ULC Act, 1976").

¶30

The petitioners asserted that no proceedings were initiated under the Act, 1976, hence, they submitted an application with the 2^nd respondent to furnish the relevant documents for having vested the subject land with the Government under Section 10(3) of the Act, 1976. The 2^nd respondent, in turn, issued endorsements dated 12.5.2015 and 14.11.2019, stating that there are no records available in the office in pursuance of vesting of the land under the provisions of the Act, 1976.

¶31

Being aggrieved by the mutation of the name of the Government in the revenue records, the petitioners are before this Court contending that no proceedings were initiated under the Act, 1976, and therefore, the mutation of the name of the Government in the revenue records lacks authority.

¶32

Learned Additional Government Advocate, for the respondent-State would submit that the possession of the subject land was taken way back in the year 1987-88, which is evident from the M.R.No.2/84-85, MR No.10/88-89. Therefore, the petitioners cannot now take undue advantage of the missing files, and the petitioners have approached this Court after an inordinate delay of 30 years from the date of taking lawful possession of the subject land by the State are not entitled for any relief sought for in

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:10955 WP No. 2772 of 2020

¶35

this petition, and prays for dismissal of the petition. In support, he places reliance on the following decisions:

¶36

i) Kapilaben Ambalal Patel v. State of Gujarat, [(2021) 12 SCC 95]

¶37

ii) The decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gawadu Siddappa Patil since deceased by

¶38

his L.Rs.-vs- State of Karnataka and others (W A No.100102/2019 DD on 22.7.2019).

¶39

Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶40

Admittedly, the subject land belongs to the brother of the petitioners who was registered as an occupant by the competent authority which is evident from the order dated 30.11.1959 at Annexure-G to the rejoinder. However, the name of the Government was mutated in the revenue records stating that the subject land is vested with the Government under the provisions of the Act, 1976.

¶41

State has filed the statement of objections stating that the records pertaining to vesting of the subject land are not available in the office concerned. It is not the case of the State that proceedings were initiated vesting the subject land under Section 10(3) of the Act, 1976, and no records were produced, the basis on which entry in favor of the Government was mutated. Therefore, the mutation of the name of the Government, in the absence of any

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:10955 WP No. 2772 of 2020

¶44

source of title as contemplated under Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act lacks authority.

¶45

The respondent-State cannot take undue advantage of the fact that the present petition is filed after an inordinate delay when there are no materials available to substantiate that the subject land vested with the Government under the Act, 1976.

¶46

The State is under an obligation to follow due procedure of law before taking possession or mutating its name in the records of rights, and the State cannot take right over the immovable property stating that the writ petition is hit by delay and latches, when the State Government is a welfare state and governed by rule of law. The petitioners cannot be deprived of their valuable rights over the immovable property, which is not only a constitutional right but also a human right, when there is violation of their substantial legal rights. Therefore, the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate that the writ petition requires to be dismissed solely on the ground of delay and latches is not acceptable. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i) The writ petition is allowed ii) It is declared that the petitioners' brother Krishnappa is entitled for the restoration of the subject land as stated under Section 3(2) of the Repealed Act, 1999.

¶49

iii) The respondent No.4 is hereby directed to delete the name of the "Government " in the revenue records in respect of the subject land and to restore the name of the Krishnappa S/o

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:10955 WP No. 2772 of 2020

¶51

¶52

Bapanahalli Venkatarayappa in the records of rights pertaining to the subject land within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Lakshmamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmamma 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prestige Bougainvillea Home Owners Association, Vs Assistant Executive Engineer (E)

Mohammed Sadiq @ Saleem Salman Vs the State

B S Devaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Kempamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Jayamma Vs State of Karnataka

Veeresh R Vs State of Karnataka