Disposed

Smt Rajamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Jun 2024WP/35428/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions challenged the Deputy Commissioner's order setting aside the Assistant Commissioner's decision on mutation entries concerning land at Danavahalli village, Kolar. The court held the Deputy Commissioner lacked jurisdiction under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act to interfere with a grant, quashed his order, and directed parties to establish their rights in the pendi

What did the court decide?

Order dated 21.06.2017 in RA.No.29/2016-17 quashed; Assistant Commissioner's order dated 29.03.2016 accepted; parties directed to establish rights in pending civil suit OS.No.556/2015.

Smt Rajamma Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:21660 WP No. 35428 of 2017 C/W WP No. 36393 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 35428 OF 2017 (KLR-RES)

¶6

C/W

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 36393 OF 2017 (KLR-RES)

¶8

IN WP.NO.35428/2017:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. RAJAMMA W/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDENT OF DANAVAHALLI VILLAGE, NARSAPURA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK - 563 101.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. AMARESH A ANGADI., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR - 563 101.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR SUB DIVISION, KOLAR - 563 101.

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:21660 WP No. 35428 of 2017 C/W WP No. 36393 of 2017

¶19

THE TAHSILDAR, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR - 563 101.

¶20

SRI. NANJAPPA S/O SRI NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDENT OF DANAVAHALLI VILLAGE, NARASAPURA HOBLI, KOLAR - 563 101.

¶21

SRI B N DEVARAJ, S/O SRI NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDENT OF DANAVAHALLI VILLAGE, NARASAPURA HOBLI, KOLAR - 563 101.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S ., AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. J.V. LOKANATH., ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI. Y.R. SADASHIVAREDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAHUL S REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R6;)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO.QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE R-2 IN R.A.NO.29/2016-17 DTD.21.6.2017 VIDE ANENX-F AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-3 IN R.A.NO.112/201516 DD.29.3.2016 VIDE ANNEX-E AND ETC.,

¶25

IN WP.NO.36393/2017:

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

SRI D N DEVARAJ S/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT DANAVAHALLI VILLAGE, NARASAPURA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK - 563 133.

¶28

…PETITIONER

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:21660 WP No. 35428 of 2017 C/W WP No. 36393 of 2017

¶30

(BY SRI. Y.R. SADASHIVAREDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DEEPAK.J., ADVOCATE)

¶31

AND:

¶32

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶33

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR - 563 101.

¶34

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR SUB DIVISION, KOLAR - 563 101.

¶35

THE TAHSILDHAR, KOLAR TALUK,

¶36

KOLAR - 563 101.

¶37

SMT. RAJAMMA W/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT DANAVAHALLI VILLAGE, NARASAPURA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK - 563 133.

¶38

SRI NANJAPPA S/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS., R/AT DANAVAHALLI VILLAGE, NARASAPURA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK - 563 133

¶39

…RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. AMARESH A ANGADI., ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI. J.V. LOKANATH., ADVOCATE FOR R6;)

¶41

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:21660 WP No. 35428 of 2017 C/W WP No. 36393 of 2017

¶42

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD21.6.2017 IN R.A.NO.29/2016-17 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.,

¶43

THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR PRILIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

In these writ petitions, the petitioners are assailing the order dated 21.06.2017 in RA.No.29/2016-17 (Annexure-F) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District, confirming the order dated 29.03.2016 in RA.No.112/2015-16 (Annexure-E) passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Kolar Sub-division, Kolar.

¶46

It is the case of the petitioner in WP.No.35428/2017 that father of the petitioner had purchased the land bearing Survey No. 2/8, measuring an extent of 2 Acres, situated at Danavahalli village, Narsapur Hobli, Kolar Taluk, Kolar District through registered Sale Deed dated 01.12.1965 from one Chikkakariyappa (Annexure-A). The boundaries of the land in question is reflected at paragraph No.1 of the writ petition.

¶47

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:21660 WP No. 35428 of 2017 C/W WP No. 36393 of 2017

¶48

It is also stated by the petitioner that, respondent Nos.5 and 6, have filed an application to the Tahsildar, Kolar Taluk, to mutate their names on the basis of the Sale Deed dated 17.03.2001 in land bearing Survey No.61 of Danavahalli Village. Copy of the Sale Deed dated 17.03.2001 was produced as Annexure-B. It is the grievance of the petitioner that, the jurisdictional Tahsildar, has mutated the name of respondent Nos.5 and 6 in MR.No.2/2011-12 as per Annexure-D and feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached the Assistant Commissioner, Kolar Sub-division, Kolar, challenging the MR.No.2/2011-12, MR.No.6/2000-01 and MR.No.1/2011-12. The Assistant Commissioner, Kolar Subdivision by order dated 29.03.2016 (Annexure-E), dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed RA.No.29/2016-17 before the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District and the said authority, vide order dated 21.06.2017 (Annexure-F), set aside the order dated 29.03.2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and observed that the Sale Deed in respect of the subject land is in violation of the grant made in favour of the vendor of the

¶49

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:21660 WP No. 35428 of 2017 C/W WP No. 36393 of 2017

¶50

petitioner and feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.

¶51

In WP.No.36393/2017, the petitioner is respondent No.6 in WP.No.35428/2017. It is the grievance of petitioner that, the petitioner had purchased the land in question as per registered Sale Deed dated 17.03.2001 from one Chikkakariyappa and the land purchased by the petitioner in WP.No.35428/2017 is different from the land purchased by the petitioner in WP.No.36393/2017. Therefore, it is contended that, the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar vide order dated 21.06.2017 had interfered with the land purchased by the petitioner as per registered Sale Deed dated 17.03.2001, which is altogether different from the land granted to the grantee in respect of the Survey No.2/8. Hence, WP.No.36393/2017 is filed by the petitioner.

¶52

I heard Sri. Amaresh A. Angadi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP.No.35428/2017 and Sri. Y.R. Sadashivareddy, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Deepak.J., for the petitioner in WP.No.36393/2017 and contesting respondent in

¶53

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:21660 WP No. 35428 of 2017 C/W WP No. 36393 of 2017

¶54

WP.No.35428/2017 and Sri. Harisha A.S., learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents - authorities.

¶55

Sri. Amaresh A Angadi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP.No.35428/2017, invited the attention of the Court to the Sale Deed produced at Annexure-A, purchased by the father of the petitioner from Chikkakariyappa on 01.12.1965 and also refers to the schedule mentioned in the Sale Deed and further contended that the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District has committed an error in interfering with the violation of the grant made in favour of the vendor of the petitioner and submitted that the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136 (3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, has no jurisdiction to interfere with the veracity of the grant made in favour of the vendor of the petitioner and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.

¶56

Sri. Y.R. Sadashivareddy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP.No.36393/2017, argued that the land claimed by the petitioner in WP.No.35428/2017 is altogether different from the petitioner in WP.No.36393/2017 and he contended that the MR.No.6/2000-01 and

¶57

NC: 2024:KHC:21660 WP No. 35428 of 2017 C/W WP No. 36393 of 2017

¶58

¶59

MR.No.1/2011-12 were made pursuant to the Sale Deed dated 17.03.2001, wherein, the respondent No.5 in WP.No.35428/2017 had purchased from one Venkataswami as per Sale Deed dated 17.03.2001 and therefore, he contended that, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District is contrary to the law. Accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. It is also contended by the learned Senior counsel Sri. Y.R.Sadashivareddy, that the civil suit is pending consideration before the competent Court in O.S.No.556/2015 filed by the petitioner in WP.No.35428/2017. Accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.

¶60

Sri. Harisha A.S, learned Additional Government Advocate, sought to justify the impugned order passed by the respondents - authorities.

¶61

In the light of the submission made by the counsel appearing for the parties, it is evident from the Sale Deed dated 01.12.1965 produced by the petitioner in WP.No.35428/2017 that, the father of the petitioner had purchased the land bearing Survey No. 2/8, measuring 2 Acres, situated at Danavahalli Village, Narsapur Hobli, Kolar Taluk and

¶62

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:21660 WP No. 35428 of 2017 C/W WP No. 36393 of 2017

¶63

the schedule in the Sale Deed dated 17.03.2001, whereby, the

¶64

land purchased by the contesting respondents in WP.No.35428/2017, who is the petitioner in

¶65

WP.No.36393/2017 and the schedule appended to the Sale Deed are distinct. In that view of the matter, as the suit in OS.No.556/2015 is pending consideration before the jurisdictional Court and therefore, the parties have to establish their right in the pending suit before the competent Court.

¶66

Insofar as, the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both petitions are justified that, the Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to interfere with the grant made in favour of the grantee, while exercising the power under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that, the finding recorded by the Assistant Commissioner, Kolar Sub-division dated 29.03.2016 in RA.No.112/2015-16 has been accepted and the order dated 21.06.2017 in RA.No.29/2016-17 is quashed, and the parties are directed to establish their rights before the Competent Civil Court in OS.No.556/2015.

¶67

NC: 2024:KHC:21660 WP No. 35428 of 2017 C/W WP No. 36393 of 2017

¶68

10 -

¶69

With these observations, the writ petitions are disposed

of.

SD/JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52

Smt Rajamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Rajamma 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

Mr.U.H.Mohammed Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B Raju Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Agnes Ozhukayil Vs the State of Karnataka

Ms Diya Devaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Thimmanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Puttaswamy @ Puttaswamygowda Vs the Deputy Commissioner