Disposed

Sri Marigowda @ Mariyappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2024WP/8604/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners claiming to be legal heirs of a 1940 grantee challenged resumption orders passed against granted land in Mysuru. The High Court held they were not aggrieved since the resumption order declaring alienations void would enure to their benefit, and disposed of the petition with liberty to assert their rights based on the decree and heirship.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Marigowda @ Mariyappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:45377 WP No. 8604 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.8604 OF 2024 (SCST)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI MARIGOWDA @ MARIYAPPA S/O. LATE JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS

¶9

SMT. SAVITHRAMMA W/O. SRI MARIGOWDA @ MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

¶10

SRI RAJESH M. S/O. SRI MARIGOWDA @ MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶11

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 ARE R/AT D. NO.999, KARIMANTI BEEDI PALAHALLI VILLAGE BELAGOLA HOBLI MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 438.

¶13

SMT. SAVITHA M. W/O. SRI PAPANNA D/O. SRI MARIGOWDA @ MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT D. NO.325 2^ND MAIN ROAD, 8^TH CROSS B. M. SRINAGARA, METAGALLI MYSURU – 570 016.

¶14

SMT. KAVITHA W/O. SRI KRISHNEGOWDA D/O. SRI MARIGOWDA @ MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:45377 WP No. 8604 of 2024

¶17

R/AT TIGER BLOCK VILLAGE H. D. KOTE TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 114.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI NANDISH GOWDA G. B., ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M. S. BUILDING DR B. R. AMBEDKAR BEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶22

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT MYSURU – 570 001.

¶23

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MYSURU SUB-DIVISION MYSURU – 570 001.

¶24

SRI KRISHNAMURTHY H. R. S/O. SRI MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶25

SRI SHEKAR S/O. SRI MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶26

SRI LOKESH S/O. SRI MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶27

RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 6

¶28

ARE RESIDING AT, HOSAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, K. R. NAGARA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 602.

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:45377 WP No. 8604 of 2024

¶30

SRI SHIVALINGE GOWDA S/O. LATE BYREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.141, BASAVANAGUDI ROAD OPP. SUBBEGOWDA HOUSE, ILAWALA HOBLI MYSURU – 570 016.

¶31

SMT. GIRIJAMMA W/O. LATE REMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶32

SRI HARISH S/O. LATE REMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶33

SMT. ASHA D/O. LATE REMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

¶34

RESPONDENT NOS. 8 TO 10 ARE R/AT NO.141 BASAVANAGUDI ROAD OPP. SUBBEGOWDA HOUSE ILAWALA HOBLI, MYSURU – 570 016.

¶35

SRI NAGEGOWDA S/O. LATE BYREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.141 BASAVANAGUDI ROAD OPP. SUBBEGOWDA HOUSE ILAWALA HOBLI, MYSURU – 570 016.

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3; R-4 TO R-11 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶38

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 05.12.2023 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN CASE NO. PTCL 25/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-H BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 04.09.2019 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN CASE NO. PTCL 14/2009 VIDE ANNEXURE -G AND G1.

¶39

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:45377 WP No. 8604 of 2024

¶40

THIS WP, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶41

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶42

ORAL ORDER

¶43

The petitioners contend that land bearing Sy.No.123 measuring 4 acres situated at Mydanahalli village, Ilawala Hobli, Mysuru taluk, Mysuru district was granted in favour of their grandfather Sri.Mallegowda S/o. Marigowda on 14.07.1940 and his name has been entered in the revenue records ever since.

¶44

The petitioners contend that they have been in possession of said land and they had, in fact, filed a suit in O.S. No.407/2023 before the V Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysuru, against respondents No.4 to 6 and had also obtained a decree on 10.10.2023. It is therefore their contention that their possession has also been recognized and confirmed by a decree of a Civil Court.

¶45

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:45377 WP No. 8604 of 2024

¶46

They contend that notwithstanding the above, respondents No.4 to 6 colluded with respondents No.7 to 11 and initiated proceedings for resumption which has ultimately been accepted by the Assistant Commissioner and also confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. They contended that on the basis of the said resumption proceedings, their rights are sought to be interfered with.

¶47

It is to be stated that since the petitioners claim that they are the legal representatives of original grantee and are also protected by a decree of injunction, any resumption proceedings that have been initiated by respondents No.4 to 6 which has culminated in an order of resumption will ultimately enure to the benefit of the petitioners and that is because if there has been an alienation in respect of the granted lands, that alienation would have been declared to be

¶48

null and void by the Assistant Commissioner and confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner.

¶49

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:45377 WP No. 8604 of 2024

¶50

If the respondents No.4 to 6 seek restitution on the basis of said order of resumption, it will be open for the petitioners to putforth their claim on the basis of the decree passed in O.S. No.407/2023 and also on the basis of them being the grand children of the original grantee.

¶51

In my view, the petitioners cannot be said to be aggrieved of the orders of resumption, since they are indirectly benefited by said order of resumption.

¶52

This Writ Petition is, therefore, disposed of, subject to the above observation.

¶53

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶54

HNM

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55

Sri Marigowda @ Mariyappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri Marigowda @ Mariyappa v. the State of Karnataka

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

Ganesh Sudhakar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. D. Shwetha, Vs Pradeep Kumar

Mr Pawan Khanna Vs Nil

Smt. H. S. Yashaswini Vs Sri. Rohith. H. S.

Smt. Pallavi. a. J. Vs Smt. Venkamma

Smt Hanumakka Vs the State of Karnataka