Writ petition against a revisional order restoring revenue entries in favour of a claimant despite civil court decrees in the original petitioner's favour in O.S.No.213/1993 and appeals. The High Court set aside the impugned revision order and confirmed the mutation order of 30.06.2015.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:45087 WP No. 4025 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.4025 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1(a) SRI NAGESH K.D. S/O LATE K.B. DODDEGOWDA @ DODANNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT KANNAMANGALA VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU-560 067.
Digitally signed by CHAITHANYA K Location: High Court of Karnataka
1(b) SMT. PRABHADEVI D/O LATE K.B. DODDEGOWDA @ DODANNA W/O SRI SURYANARAYAN RAJ AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO.482, BHEL MINI COLONY PIPELINE ROAD, DASARAHALLI BENGALURU-560 057.
1(c) SMT. VINODHA D/O LATE K.B. DODEGOWDA @ DODANNA W/O SRI KRISHNAPPA K.M. AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.23, 5TH MAIN 5TH CROSS, CHUNCHAGHATTA KONANAKUNTE, BENGALURU-560 062.
NC: 2024:KHC:45087 WP No. 4025 of 2021
R/AT NADAVATHI VILLAGE HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
R/AT DEVANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE
REDDYHALLI POST DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
…PETITIONERS (BY SRI S.B. TOTAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
KHANDAYA BHAVANA
K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R.1 TO R.4; SRI N. MURALI, ADVOCATE FOR R.5.)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.02.2021 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN R.P.NO.703/2017-18, IN RESPECT OF LAND MEASURING 1 ACRE 35 GUNTAS IN SY.NO.53/2 OF SIDDAPURA VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION AS THE SAME SUFFERS FROM ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD, ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
` CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
ORAL ORDER
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 04.02.2021 passed by
respondent no.2 in Revision Petition No.703/2017-2018, the present writ petition is filed by legal representatives of deceased respondent no.3 therein.
of land in Survey No.53/2 of Siddapura Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk by virtue of a compromise decree passed in O.S.No.608/1992 by the Court of II Munsiff, Bengaluru. The revenue entries pertaining to the said property was mutated in the name of respondent no.5. The original petitioner was not made a party to the proceedings in O.S.No.608/1992. On the ground that respondent no.5 is not the owner of the property, but it is the original petitioner and that the decree passed in O.S.No.608/1992 is not binding on the original petitioner, the original petitioner preferred O.S.No.213/1993 before
the Principal II Munsiff, Bengaluru. In the said original suit, respondent no.5 has been impleaded as a party. The
trial court has decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner herein. The said decree was challenged by respondent no.5 in R.A.No.53/1997. The same came to be dismissed. It was challenged by respondent no.5 in RSA No.961/2004. The same came to be dismissed as withdrawn. On the ground that the original petitioner is the owner of the property which is the subject matter of the writ petition, she preferred an appeal before respondent no.3 to have the revenue entries regarding the property mutated in her name. As the original petitioner had succeeded in O.S.No.213/1993, R.A.No.53/1997 and RSA No.961/2004, respondent no.3 passed an order (vide Annexure-H to the writ petition) mutating the revenue entry regarding the property concerned in the name of the original petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, respondent no.5 preferred a revision before respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 for the following reason has allowed the said revision and has directed that the revenue entries to be mutated in the name of respondent no.5:
ORDER
(i) The impugned order dated 04.02.2021
passed by respondent no.2 in Revision Petition
NC: 2024:KHC:45087 WP No. 4025 of 2021
No.703/2017-2018 (vide Annexure-A to the writ
petition) is hereby set aside;
(ii) The order dated 30.06.2015 passed by respondent no.3 in RA (B.E.) No.146/2005-06 is hereby confirmed;
(iii) The writ petition stands disposed of
accordingly.
Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE
hkh.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revisional authority could restore revenue entries to respondent no.5 despite final civil court judgments holding the original petitioner to be the owner of the land.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Byramma (since dead by her LRs, incl. Nagesh K.D., Prabhadevi, Vinodha, Venkatalakshmi, Gayathri, Manjuladevi D.)
The State of Karnataka
The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District
The Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub Division
The Special Tahasildar, Bengaluru East Taluk
Smt. Jayamma
M.I. Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
