Partly allowed

Smt Gowramma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Sept 2024WP/7170/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Legal heirs of a 1965 land grantee challenged the Deputy Commissioner's Section 71 order reserving their land for Ashraya housing sites and sought mutation of their names. The High Court quashed the reservation order for want of enquiry and directed authorities to consider mutation after verification.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 28.02.2023 quashed; respondents to consider Annexure-J recommendation and pass orders per law; enquiry into genuineness permitted within six months.

Smt Gowramma Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:36354 WP No. 7170 of 2023 C/W WP No. 22576 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 7170 OF 2023 (KLR-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 22576 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)

¶6

IN WP No. 7170/2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. GOWRAMMA AGED 66 YEARS, W/O LATE SAMPAGERE KRISHNAPPA

¶9

G.K. LAXMINARAYANA AGED 49 YEARS S/O LATE SAMPAGERE KRISHNAPPA

¶10

K. SRINIVAS AGED 46 YEARS

¶11

S/O LATE SAMPAGERE KRISHNAPPA

¶12

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

K. VENKATAPATHI AGED 44 YEARS S/O LATE SAMPAGERE KRISHNAPPA

¶14

HEMAVATHI AGED 40 YEARS D/O LATE SAMPAGERE KRISHNAPPA

¶15

PREMA AGED 36 YEARS D/O LATE SAMPAGERE KRISHNAPPA

¶16

ALL ARE R/AT GANAGALURU VILLAGE ANAGONDANAHALLI HOBLI

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:36354 WP No. 7170 of 2023 C/W WP No. 22576 of 2022

¶18

HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU-563 130.

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI. G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIGNESHWARA .U, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001.

¶23

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ZILLADHALITHA BHAVAN BEERASANDRA VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU.

¶24

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPUR SUB - DIVISION DODDABALLAPUR-561 203 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU.

¶25

THE TAHASILDAR HOSAKOTE TALUK HOSAKOTE-562 114 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU.

¶26

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH HOSAKOTE TALUK

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:36354 WP No. 7170 of 2023 C/W WP No. 22576 of 2022

¶29

HOSAKOTE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI. HARISHA .A.S, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶32

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.02.2023 PASSED IN CASE NO.LND(HO)CR/358/2022-23 ON THE FILE OF THE R2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND TO DECLARE THE SAME AS ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE UNDER LAW AND ETC.

¶33

IN WP NO. 22576/2022

¶34

BETWEEN:

¶35

SMT. GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

¶36

W/O. LATE SAMPAGERE KRISHNAPPA

¶37

G.K. LAXMINARAYANA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶38

S/O LATE SAMPAGERE KRISHNAPPA

¶39

K. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O LATE SAMPAGERE KRISHNAPPA

¶40

K. VENKATAPATHI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O LATE SAMPAGERE KRISHNAPPA

¶41

HEMAVATHI

¶42

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS D/O LATE SAMPAGERE KRISHNAPPA

¶43

PREMA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶44

D/O LATE SAMPAGERE KRISHNAPPA

¶45

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:36354 WP No. 7170 of 2023 C/W WP No. 22576 of 2022

¶46

ALL ARE R/AT GANAGALURU VILLAGE ANAGONDANAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU-563 130.

¶47

...PETITIONERS

¶48

(BY SRI. G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIGNESHWARA .U, ADVOCATE)

¶49

AND:

¶50

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001.

¶51

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA-561 203.

¶52

THE TAHASILDAR HOSAKOTE TALUK HOSAKOTE-562 114 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU-562 114.

¶53

...RESPONDENTS

¶54

(BY SRI. HARISHA .A.S, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶55

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING FOR DIRECTION TO R3 TAHASILDAR TO COMPLY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER VIDE HIS ORDER AT ANNEXURE J DATED 19.03.2018 FORTHWITH AND MUTATE THE NAMES OF THE PETITIONERS IN THE REVENUE RECORDS (RTC) FORTHWITH BY PASSING NECESSARY ORDERS.

¶56

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:36354 WP No. 7170 of 2023 C/W WP No. 22576 of 2022

¶57

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶58

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶59

ORAL ORDER

¶60

W.P.No.7170/2023 is filed assailing the order of the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner who has exercised power under Section 71 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the petition land is now reserved for the purpose of allotment of sites under Ashraya Scheme. W.P.No.22576/2022 is filed seeking a mandamus against the respondent No.3/Tahsildar to implement the direction issued by the respondent No.2 as per Annexure-J and mutate the names of the petitioners.

¶61

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

¶62

learned AGA appearing for the respondents. Perused the records.

¶63

Petitioners are asserting that the petition land

¶64

was originally granted to the mother-in-law of petitioner No.1 and grandmother of petitioner Nos.2 to 6 vide order

¶65

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:36354 WP No. 7170 of 2023 C/W WP No. 22576 of 2022

¶66

dated 15.10.1965. The original grantee, pursuant to grant, made payment before the Treasury Officer with regard to kimmat and accordingly, sketch was drawn and mutation entries were effected as per M.R.No.5/69-70 in the name of said Venkatamma. The receipts for having made payment to the Treasury is also evidenced at Annexure-C. After the death of Venkatamma, the schedule land was mutated in the name of her son Krishnappa and the same continued in the revenue records upto 2002. On the death of Krishnappa on 29.01.2016, petitioners claiming to be the legal heirs preferred appeal and the existing name of Krishnappa was deleted on account of computerized entry to the RTC. The respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner as per order vide Annexure-J allowed the appeal and directed the respondent No.4/Tahsildar to mutate the names of the petitioners.

¶67

W.P.No.22576/2022 is filed feeling aggrieved by

¶68

the inaction on the part of the respondents in not

¶69

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:36354 WP No. 7170 of 2023 C/W WP No. 22576 of 2022

¶70

implementing the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner as per Annexure-J. Pending consideration of the writ petition in W.P.No.22576/2022, the Deputy Commissioner has passed an order under Section 71 thereby reserving the petition land to be utilized for implementing the Ashraya Scheme.

¶71

The petition land is now sought to be handed over to respondent No.5 to implement Ashraya Scheme. On examining the records, the order of the Deputy Commissioner in W.P.No.7170/2023 is not sustainable. The respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner has not at all secured RTC and the other relevant records to ascertain whether this land is owned by the State. Petitioner Nos.2 to 6's grandmother to whom this land was granted way back in 1965, mutation was effected and her name was entered to the RTC and the same was found till her death. After her death, her son Krishnappa got his name mutated to the revenue records.

¶72

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:36354 WP No. 7170 of 2023 C/W WP No. 22576 of 2022

¶73

If these significant details are looked into, the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A in W.P.No.7170/2023 was clearly intended to deny the petitioners to get their name mutated to the revenue records.

¶74

Though learned AGA placing reliance on the original register has vehemently argued and contended that the grant order secured by the petitioners' ancestor namely Venkatamma is a fraudulent grant, this Court is not inclined to accede to the said argument. Unless there is a proper enquiry coupled with an opportunity to the grantees family, respondent/State while justifying the action of Deputy Commissioner under Section 71 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act cannot make a bald statement and claim that grant made in 1965 is a fraudulent grant. If the State is of the opinion that the grant is a fraudulent grant, a proper procedure has to be adopted by the competent authority. Unless there is a proper enquiry and determination on the grant set up by

¶75

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:36354 WP No. 7170 of 2023 C/W WP No. 22576 of 2022

¶76

the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner erred in invoking Section 71 under the impugned order vide Annexure-A.

¶77

The impugned order vide Annexure-A clearly prejudices the petitioners right. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the order under challenge is not at all sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶78

The original Venkatamma secured the grant way back in 1965. The order is dated 15.10.1965. Learned AGA has made a statement that there is a tampering of the original register and in absence of grant, the petitioners are falsely asserting right over the petition land. The record of rights are placed on record by the petitioners. Grant is dated 15.10.1965 and receipts for having paid upset price is evidenced at Annexure-C. There are long standing entries in the RTC in the name of Venkatamma and after her death, her son's name is mutated and these entries are found till RTC's were computerized.

¶79

10 -

¶80

NC: 2024:KHC:36354 WP No. 7170 of 2023 C/W WP No. 22576 of 2022

¶81

If these significant details are taken into consideration, the Deputy Commissioner erred in

¶82

exercising power under Section 71 and thereby reserving this land to be implemented for allotment of site under Ashraya Scheme. The entire exercise adopted by the Deputy Commissioner probably appears to nullify the petitioner's right. If the grant is fraudulent, there has to

¶83

be an enquiry and the authority has to render positive findings in that regard after hearing interested parties. Till such enquiry is contemplated, the respondent No.1/State and the revenue authorities cannot simply scuttle the rights accrued to the citizens based on grant made by the competent authorities. In that view of the matter, the order under challenge in W.P.No.7170/2023 is not sustainable.

¶84

Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶85

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:36354 WP No. 7170 of 2023 C/W WP No. 22576 of 2022

¶86

ORDER

¶87

(i) W.P.No.7170/2023 is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.02.2023 passed by the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-A is quashed and set aside;

¶88

(ii) W.P.No.22576/2022 is allowed-in-part. The respondents shall consider the recommendation made by the respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner as per Annexure-J and after verifying the records shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law;

¶89

(iii) This order will not come in the way of the competent authority to hold an enquiry to ascertain whether the grant is genuine;

¶90

(iv) This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

¶91

(v) Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of accordingly.

¶92

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶93

¶94

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 76

Smt Gowramma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Gowramma v. the 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

A Manjunath Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Marakka Vs the State Government

Sri H R Suryanarayan Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Mohan Kumar G Vs State of Karnataka

Sri G K Anand Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Dhanalakshmi T S Vs State of Karnataka