Allowed

Smt Nagarathnamma v. Joint Commissioner Bengaluru East

Karnataka HC28 Aug 2024WP/4440/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition seeking mutation of land titles. The court held that after the Supreme Court restored the land to original owners who refunded compensation, the administration is required to consider the change of khatha representation and pass an order within two months.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider the petitioners' representation and pass an appropriate order within two months.

Smt Nagarathnamma Vs Joint Commissioner Bengaluru East — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:34459 WP No. 4440 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 4440 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, WIFE OF LATE SHRI SUBANNA, RESIDING AT NO.3, MUNNISWAMAPPA ROAD, J C NAGAR, MUNNIREDDY PALYA, BENGALURU - 560 006.

¶8

Digitally signed by YAMUNA K L Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶9

SMT. VISHALAKSHI, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, WIFE OF SHRI. ERAPPA, RISIDING AT NO.2953, 1ST CROSS, 'D' BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010.

¶10

SMT. GAYATRI, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, WIFE OF SHRI. MUNIKRISHNAIAH, RESIDING AT NO.191, SHANKARNAG ROAD, DOMLUR, BENGALURU - 560 017.

¶11

SMT. C.M. SAVITRI, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, WIFE OF LATE SHRI C. VENKATANARAYANAPPA,

¶12

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:34459 WP No. 4440 of 2024

¶13

RESIDING AT NO.409, GANGAMMAGUDI ROAD, CHIKKABALAPUR TOWN, CHIKKABALAPUR - 562 101.

¶14

SHRI. S. MURLI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, SON OF SHRI. SHAMANNA, RESIDING AT NO.586, 2ND FLOOR, 1ST CROSS, OPP. BBMP OFFICE, BENGALURU LAYOUT, BENGALURU NORTH.

¶15

PETITIONER NOS. 1 TO 5 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SHRI. SANDEEP R.

¶16

MS. NAGARATHNAMMA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, WIFE OF LATE SHRI. RAGHUNATH, RESIDING AT ATTIBELE, SULIBELE POST, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 562 129.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. ABHISHEK K., ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

JOINT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU EAST BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BBMP, BENGALURU, ASHOK NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶21

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:34459 WP No. 4440 of 2024

¶22

DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DISTRICT, BBMP, BENGALURU, ASHOK NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶23

REVENUE OFFICER,

¶24

BBMP, DOMMLUR SUB DIVSIION, M G ROAD, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 560071.

¶25

ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, BBMP, DOMMLUR SUB DIVISION, M G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560071.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. JAGADEESWARA N. R., ADVOCATE)

¶28

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO MUTATE THE LAND IN SCHEDULE-A ALL THAT PIECE AND PARCEL OF SURVEY NO.58/5 SITUATED AT KASABA HOBLI, DOMMLUR VILLAGE, BANGALORE TALUK (NOW BENGALURU EAST TALUK) MEASURING AT 0.28 GUNTAS AND SCHEDULE -B ALL THAT PIECE AND PARCEL OF SURVEY NO. 58/7 SITUATED AT KASABA HOBLI, DOMMLUR VILLAGE, BANGALORE TALUK (NOW BENGALURU EAST TALUK) MEASURING AT 0.28 GUNTAS KHATHA IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶29

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:34459 WP No. 4440 of 2024

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking for the writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to mutate the properties in the schedule-A and B of the petition in the name of the petitioners.

¶35

Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as

¶36

under:

¶37

The petitioners No.1 to 5 are the co-owners of 28 guntas of land in Sy.No.58/5, situated at Kasaba Hobli, Domlur Village, Bangalore Taluk, more particularly described in the schedule-A property. It is contended that petitioner No.6 is the sole and absolute owner of the land in Sy.No.58/7 in Kasaba Hobli, more particularly described in schedule-B property. The Government of Karnataka notified the lands in and around Domlur Village, for the purpose of formation of layout by Amar Jyothi House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, including the land of the petitioners. The State Government issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for schedule A and

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:34459 WP No. 4440 of 2024

¶39

B properties including other properties. Some of the owners of the adjacent lands challenged the acquisition proceedings before this Court in W.P.No.27983/1995 and W.P.No.15085/1995. This Court vide order dated 18-03-1996 quashed the acquisition proceedings. M/s. Amar Jyothi House Building Co-operative Society Limited aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Single Judge, preferred a writ appeal in W.A.No.6017-6018 of 1997. The Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased to dismiss the appeal filed by the society. The said society aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Single Judge and the Division Bench, filed the SLPs, i.e., SLPs(C)Nos.13114 and 13339 of 1991. The Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the appeal and directed the respondents herein to restore the lands in favour of the respective original land owners and on the restoration of the possession of land, some of the land owners were to refund the amount received by them as a compensation. After the disposal of said SLPs, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents to change the khatha in the name of the petitioners and issued several reminders to the respondents. The respondents have not considered the representation, hence this writ petition.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:34459 WP No. 4440 of 2024

¶42

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 4.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that admittedly the petitioners are the owners of the schedule-A and B properties, as the Government has initiated the acquisition proceedings and proposed to acquire the land of the petitioners and issued a preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Some of the adjacent land owners aggrieved by the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Government preferred a writ petition. The said writ petition was allowed and the acquisition proceedings were quashed by this Court and same was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Hence, he submits that the petitioners have submitted the application for change of khatha in their names, but the respondents have not considered the representation and passed any order. Hence, the petitioners filed this writ petition.

¶44

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that, the society has already allotted sites in favour of the third party and he also submits that if the petitioners fulfill all the requirements, the respondents will consider the

¶45

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:34459 WP No. 4440 of 2024

¶46

representation and pass an order for change of khatha in the name of the petitioners. It is also submitted that if reasonable time is granted to the respondents, the respondents will consider the representation and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶47

Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶48

It is not in dispute that petitioners No.1 to 5 are the co-owners of A-schedule property and petitioner No.6 is the owner of B-schedule property and the said lands were acquired by the Government by issuing a preliminary notification and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The adjacent land owners aggrieved by the initiation of the acquisition proceedings preferred writ petitions in W.P.No.27983/1995 and W.P.No.15085/1995. This Court vide order dated 18.03.1996 allowed the writ petition filed by the land owners and quashed the acquisition proceedings.

¶49

The beneficiary has filed writ appeal in W.A.Nos.6017-6018 of 1997. The Hon'ble Division Bench was

¶50

pleased to dismiss the writ appeal. The beneficiary aggrieved

¶51

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:34459 WP No. 4440 of 2024

¶52

by the order passed in writ petitions and writ appeals, preferred SLP in SLPs (C) Nos.13114 and 13339 of 1991. The Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the said SLPs and directed the respondents herein to restore the lands in favour of the respective original land owners and on such restoration, land owners have to refund the amounts received by them as compensation.

¶53

It is clear that the petitioners have already refunded the compensation amount received by them in the year 2009. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted a representation to the respondents to change the khatha in their names, but the respondents without passing any order on the said representation, kept the representation in abeyance. When representation is made, the respondents have to consider the same and pass an appropriate order. Admittedly, in the instant case the respondents have not passed any order on the representation made by the petitioners.

¶54

Hence, in view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:34459 WP No. 4440 of 2024

¶57

ORDER

¶58

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶59

ii) The respondents are directed to consider the representation vide Annexures - A and B, and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶60

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶61

MCR

Smt Nagarathnamma v. Joint Commissioner Bengaluru East

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Nagarathnamma v. Joint Commissioner Bengaluru East

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

Sri. Bhojraj K.G. Vs State of Karnataka

Lakshmamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Madhusudhan M Vs the Commissioner

Sri M v Rama Rao Vs the Commissioner

H C Duggappa Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Narayanaswamy Vs v. Anjaneya Reddy