Petitioners claiming ownership of land via auction purchase challenged the Deputy Commissioner's revision order restoring 'Burial Ground' entry in the RTC. Finding the petitioners had falsely claimed non-participation in earlier proceedings and produced no auction documents, the Court dismissed the writ petition with costs.
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:20268 WP No. 4822 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 4822 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LRS
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT. SAVITHA T.H., ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. LOKESH B.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: High Court of Karnataka
RESPONDENT NOS.6 TO 13 ARE RESIDENT OF IDDALINGAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 002
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5; SRI. A. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R13)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21/11/2023 IN RP NO.25/2020 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONSIDER AND RESTORE THE ORDER DATED 12/02/2004 IN RRT(A)11/2002-03 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner is assailing order
dated 21.11.2023 in RP No.25 of 2020 on the file of the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner (Annexure-F), allowing the revision petition filed by the contesting respondents.
writ petition are that, the petitioner claims to be absolute owner in possession of the land in question having purchased the land in auction proceedings, and thereafter, his name has been reflected in the revenue records. It is stated by the petitioner that, the respondent No.4, by passing the order at Annexure-D entered name as Burial Ground in the column No.9 of
RTC and feeling aggrieved by the same the same the petitioner has preferred appeal before respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Respondent No.3, by order dated 12.02.2004 (Annexure-E), allowed the application filed by the petitioner and set aside the orders passed by respondent No.4-Thasildar, entering the name of burial ground in the RTC extracts. Being aggrieved by the same, revision petition was filed before the respondent No.2 in RP
No.25 of 2020 and the respondent No.2 by order dated 21.11.2023 (Annexure-F) allowed the revision petition filed by the contesting respondents and as such, set aside the order dated 12.02.2004 (Annexure-E) passed by the respondent No.3. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the respondent No.2 has failed to consider the factual aspects on record as the land in question is belong to
the petitioners as the ancestors of the petitioners have purchased the land in question in auction proceedings. It is also contended by the learned counsel that, the order passed by the respondent No.2 on the earlier occasion as per order dated 09.11.2010 (AnnexureR1 to the statement of objections) and in the said revision petition, the petitioner was not party and as such, the petitioner sought for interference of this Court on the ground that, the impugned order is nonest and requires to be interfered with in this writ petition.
counsel for the respondents 6 to 13 refers to the cause title at Annexure-R1 in RP No. 19/2004-05 and 25/2004-05 (Annexure-R1) and submitted that the petitioners herein were arraigned as respondents 2 and 3 before the respondent No.2 and therefore, submitted that the petitioners have misguided the
court and accordingly, submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the respondent No.4 .
appearing for the respondent-State sought to justify the impugned orders produced at Annexures-E and F and submitted that respondent No.2 on earlier occasion on 09.11.2010 remanded the matter to respondent No.3 with regard to auction proceedings have been conducted in respect of the land in question and therefore, learned Additional Government
Advocate sought to justify the impugned orders.
respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the said proceedings and therefore, the petitioners have not approached this court with clean hands. Perusal of paragraph 15 of the writ petition would indicate that, the petitioners have abused the process of law. It is also forthcoming from the perusal of earlier order dated 09.11.2010 (Annexure- R1) whereby, respondent No.2 remanded the matter to the respondent No.3 to determine about the auction proceedings, if any, as claimed by the petitioners herein since no documents have been produced by the petitioners in the said proceedings. Pursuant to the order dated 09.11.2010 (AnnexureR1), passed by the respondent No.2, the respondent No.3 by order dated 21.09.2013 (Annexure-R2) dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners herein in RRT.(A).No.260/2010-11 and as such, directed the parties to establish their right before the civil court. It is the categorical finding recorded by the Trial Court
that the petitioners herein have not produced documents relating to purchase of the property in auction proceedings. It is also noted that, even today nothing is shown before this court, to establish how the petitioners have acquired the property in question, and as such, I am of the opinion that, the entire writ petition is misconceived as stated above due to abuse of process of law by stating at paragraph 15 of the writ petition that, the petitioners are not parities to RP No.19 and 25 of 2004-05 before respondent No.2, and therefore, the petition is deserves to be dismissed with cost o Rs.5,000/- to be payable to the Karnataka Legal Service Authority.
Registry is directed to send the copy of this order
to Karnataka Legal service authority for further action.
SD/JUDGE
SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Deputy Commissioner's order in RP No.25/2020 setting aside the Assistant Commissioner's order should be quashed.
Whether the petitioner was a party to the earlier revision proceedings RP Nos.19 and 25 of 2004-05.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Puttamma W/o Late Thimmegowda since dead by LRs (Narayana S/o Late Thimmegowda)
The State of Karnataka represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue
The Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru District
The Assistant Commissioner, Mysuru Sub-Division
The Tahsildar, Mysuru Taluk
The Village Accountant, Kesare Kasaba Hobli
E.S. Indiresh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
