Disposed

Sri Jagadish J Sule v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC19 Nov 2024WP/7853/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 seeking quashing of revenue entries (katha) is not maintainable where adjudication requires examination of disputed questions: existence of a particular survey number, the location of the petitioner's land, and whether entries were secured by fraudulent documents. The High Court declined interference on the apprehension that the petitioner might lose in civil proceedings and disposed of the petition leaving all questions open to be decided in a properly instituted civil suit.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Jagadish J Sule Vs the Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:46682 WP No. 7853 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7853 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI JAGADISH J SULE S/O JAGANATH SULE, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.217, BEML LAYOUT, BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BANGALORE - 560079 REP BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER DATE 20.04.2017

¶9

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SRI SANTHOSH SHOBHA SANGANNAVAR, S/O I.C. SANGANNAVAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO. 150/C-3, 2ND B CROSS, 8TH MAIN, BEML LAYOUT, BASAVESHWAR NAGAR BANGALORE - 560079.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. DANAPPA P. PANIBHATE, ADVOCATE)

¶13

¶14

NC: 2024:KHC:46682 WP No. 7853 of 2024

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶17

THE REVENUE OFFICER BYAYARAYANAPURA REVENUE OFFICE, BENGALURU - 560092.

¶18

SRI M V NAGESH, S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.83, DASAPPA BUILDING, DODDAKALLASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560062.

¶19

SRI MUNISWAMAPPA, S/O LATE KONAPPA, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,

¶20

SRI M NARAYANASWAMY, S/O MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶21

SRI S M VENKATESH, S/O MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶22

SMT. SUJATHA, D/O LAET MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶23

SMT. RUKMINI W/O LATE NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:46682 WP No. 7853 of 2024

¶26

NO.4, SRIRAMPURA VILLAGE, JAKKUR POST, BENGALURU - 560064.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. KARTHIKEYAN B S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶29

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE BBMP KATHA DATED 13/09/2017 PID NO. 78/1/4/11 SY. NO. 11 SITUATED AT SRIRAMPURA VILLAGE, YELANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE, VIDE ANNEXURE-N.

¶30

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

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

The petitioner is aggrieved by the revenue

¶34

entries for the property in PID No.78/1/4/11 measuring 40 ft X 30 ft within the limits of BBMP Ward No.5, Srirampura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru [ as per Annexure-N ] in favour of the third respondent]. The petitioner, in support of this grievance and the request for quashing these revenue entries, contends that he is the owner of property bearing Site No.11 in PID No.78/11 of Srirampura

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:46682 WP No. 7853 of 2024

¶37

Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru, and that the private respondents acting in cohorts have ensured that the impugned revenue entries are secured in favour of the third respondent for his property [ in PID No.78/11 ] misrepresenting that the impugned revenue entries are for a portion in the land in Sy.No.1/4 of Srirampura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru when there is no such survey number in the village.

¶38

Sri. Danappa P. Panibhate, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner's efficacious remedy would be in seeking quashing of the revenue entries because the petitioner may loose in the civil proceedings as the revenue entries are already issued. These submissions are considered after extending an opportunity to Sri. B. S. Karthikeyan, a learned standing counsel, who is on record for the first and second respondents.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:46682 WP No. 7853 of 2024

¶41

This Court must observe that to hold that the impugned revenue entries are for the petitioner’s property in PID No.78/11, different questions such as (a) whether there is land in Sy.No.1/4 in Srirampura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru, (b) whether the petitioner's land is in such survey number or is in any other survey number, and (c) whether the third respondent is given the benefit of revenue entries because of fraudulent documents will have to be examined. These are questions which must be examined in a properly instituted suit. The apprehension that the petitioner may not succeed in such suit because the revenue entries will not be sufficient for interference.

¶42

Hence, the petition is disposed of observing that

¶43

all questions are left open to be decided in a civil suit if the petitioner avails such remedy.

¶44

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶45

Sri Jagadish J Sule v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri Jagadish J Sule v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. H. M. Krishna Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Priyanka M Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. H.R. Lokesh, Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Vishnu Priya Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Thrilok Chandar Vs the Commissioner

Sri Harish v Vs the State of Karnataka