Allowed

Smt. Jayamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Mar 2024WP/3638/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging the mutation of government name in revenue records without authority. Despite a 30-year delay, the Court ruled that the State cannot take undue advantage of missing files to deny relief when substantial legal rights are at stake, directing restoration of the petitioner's rights.

What did the court decide?

The name of the Government deleted from revenue records; name of Dyavappa restored; petitioner directed to notify restoration under Section 3(2) of the Repealed Act, 1999.

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

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:15419 WP No. 3638 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. 3638 OF 2020 (ULC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE KALLAPPA DAUGHTER IN LAW OF LATE DYAVAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS

¶9

SMT. SIDAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKAKALLAPPA DAUGHTER IN LAW OF LATE DYAVAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶10

SRI MUNIRAJU S/O LATE DYAVAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶11

ALL ARE RESIDING AT AMRUTHAHALLI VILLAGE, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. GAUTAM S. BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

AND:

¶16

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

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER URBAN LAND CEILING BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560009.

¶18

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-560001.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:15419 WP No. 3638 of 2020

¶21

TAHSILDHAR YELAHANKA TALUK BENGALURU, KARNATAKA

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

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

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT URBAN LAND CEILING REGULATION ACT, 1976 IS ABATED IN SO FAR AS SY.NO.106/4 MEASURING 1 ACRE 10 GUNTAS, SY.NO.108/3 MEASURING 20 GUNTAS, SY.NO.108/5 MEASURING 12 GUNTAS SITUATED AT AMRUTHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK AND CONSEQUENTLY AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.2 asserts to be the daughter-in-laws, and petitioner No.3, asserts to be the son of late Dyavappa, and they contended that during the lifetime of Dyavappa, filed an application to register him as an occupant in respect of land bearing Sy.No.106/4 measuring 1 acre 10 guntas, Sy.No.108/3 measuring 20 guntas, Sy.No.108/5 measuring 12 guntas situated in Amruthalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru.

¶28

The Special Deputy Commissioner for abolition of Inams, conferred the occupancy rights in favor of Dyavappa with respect to the schedule lands under Section 5 of the Mysore (personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:15419 WP No. 3638 of 2020

¶31

Petitioners asserted that the name of late Dyavappa was mutated in the revenue records in respect of the subject land in pursuance of the order under Section 5 of the Mysore (personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954.

¶32

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 section 10(3) of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short "ULC Act, 1976"). though no proceedings were initiated under ULC Act, 1976.

¶33

Thereafter, the petitioners submitted an application with the 2^nd respondent to furnish relevant documents for having vesting the subject land with the Government under provisions of ULC Act, 1976. The 2^nd respondent, in turn, issued endorsements dated 21.1.2017 and 14.11.2019, stating that records pertaining to the subject land are not received by the office from the then competent authority in pursuance of vesting of the land under the provisions of the ULC Act, 1976.

¶34

Being aggrieved by the mutation of the name of the Government in the revenue records, the petitioners are before this Court contending that there was no vesting of the lands under the Act, 1976, and therefore, the mutation of the name of the Government in the revenue records is one without authority of law.

¶35

Learned Additional Government Advocate, for the respondent-State would submit that the possession of the subject land was taken way back in the year 1983-84, which is evident

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:15419 WP No. 3638 of 2020

¶38

from the M.R.No.3/84-85,. 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 this petition, and prays for dismissal of the petition. In support, he places reliance on the following decisions:

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

Admittedly, the subject land belongs to father-in-law of Petitioner No.1 and 2, and father of petitioner No.3 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.

¶44

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

¶45

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:15419 WP No. 3638 of 2020

¶46

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

¶47

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 is vested with the Government under the Act, 1976.

¶48

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 petitioner cannot be deprived of his valuable rights over the immovable property, which is not only a constitutional right but also human right, when there is violation of his 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:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶51

ii) It is declared that the petitioner No.3 father Dyavappa is entitled for the restoration of the subject land as stated under Section 3(2) of the Repealed Act, 1999.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:15419 WP No. 3638 of 2020

¶54

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 Dyavappa 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.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

HR, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0

Smt. Jayamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jayamma 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

Lakshmamma Vs State of Karnataka

Veeresh R Vs State of Karnataka