Dismissed

Sri. K. Chikkanna v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2024WP/8661/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Deputy Commissioner's order continuing certain mutation entries in a PTCL land dispute. The High Court held revenue authorities cannot decide title, which must await the outcome of pending W.P.No.7154 of 2022, and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed, mutation-entry order left intact subject to outcome of W.P.No.7154 of 2022.

Sri. K. Chikkanna Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:20211 WP No. 8661 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 8661 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. K. CHIKKANNA S/O LATE KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶9

RESIDING AT KUMBARAHALLI VILLAGE HESARAGHATTA HOBLI YELAHANKA TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560 090

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. PRAKASH TIMMANNA HEBBAR., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 5^TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING

¶14

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001

¶16

REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER K.G.ROAD BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU - 560 009

¶18

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KANDAYA BHAVAN BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION BENGALURU - 560 009

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:20211 WP No. 8661 of 2024

¶21

THE TAHSILDAR YELAHANKA TALUK YELAHANKA, BENGALURU PIN CODE - 560 064

¶22

SRI. PRAKASH S/O GANGASIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶23

SMT. SIDDAMMA D/O LATE CHIKKASIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS

¶24

SRI. RAJANNA S/O LATE GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS

¶25

SRI. CHIKKANNA S/O LATE GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶26

SRI. REVANNA S/O LATE GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶27

SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE DODDAREVANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶28

SRI. CHIKKAREVAMMA S/O LATE CHIKKANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 99 YEARS

¶29

ALL ARE RESIDING AT KUMBARAHALLI VILLAGE HESSARAGHATTA HOBLI

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:20211 WP No. 8661 of 2024

¶32

YELAHANKA TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560 090

¶33

…RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. S.M. SREERAMA REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R11)

¶35

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE FILE OF THE R2 - DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN CASE NO. RP 171/2020-21, PERUSE THE SAME, HEAR THE PARTIES AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO PASS THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS TO THE PETITIONER AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22/02/2024 PASSED BY THE R2-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN RP 171/202021 AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

¶36

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing order dated 22.02.2024 in RP No.171 of 2020-21

¶39

(Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.2.

¶40

Relevant facts for the adjudication of this

¶41

writ petition are that, the land in question is claims to be the land granted in favour of the original grantee-

¶42

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:20211 WP No. 8661 of 2024

¶43

Kari Hanumaiah and Venkatappa. Thereafter, the land in question was sold in favour of the father of petitioner as per registered Sale Deed 14.12.1971 (Annexure-B). Pursuant to the same, partition took place in the joint family consisting of father of the petitioner and others and as such, 12 guntas each were allotted to the shares of respective branches of contesting respondents. It is further stated in the writ petition that, son of Venkatappa had approached the respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of Karnataka Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (PTCL) Act, 1978 and as such, respondent No.3 has passed an order dated 27.06.1992 (Annexure-C) holding that, the land in question be restored in the names of legal representatives of original grantee and as such, the alienation made in favour of father of the petitioner as per registered Sale Deed dated 14.12.1971 was quashed. Being aggrieved by the

¶44

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:20211 WP No. 8661 of 2024

¶45

same, the petitioner herein has challenged the order passed by the respondent No.3 before the respondent No.2, in appeal No.SC-ST(A) 25/2001-2002 and the Appellate Authority by order dated 29.09.2003 (Annexure-D), partly allowed the appeal and as such, remanded the matter to the respondent No.3 for fresh consideration. The said order passed by the respondent No.2 was questioned before this court in W.P.No.51552 of 2003 and this court by order dated 27.09.2005 disposed of the writ petition, and quashed the order dated 29.09.2003 (Annexure-D) thereunder.

¶46

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner

¶47

herein has approached this court in W.A.No.3808 of 2005 and this court by order dated 31.08.2010 allowed the appeal in-part and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North SubDivision, to re-consider the issue afresh to the extent of land claimed by the appellant in the writ appeal.

¶48

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:20211 WP No. 8661 of 2024

¶49

After remand, the Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 24.09.2020 dismissed the claim made by the alleged legal representatives of the original grantee (Annexure-G). The said order was challenged the before the Appellate Authority-respondent No.2 in Appeal and after the conclusion of the proceedings, the said order was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.7154 of 2022, by the legal representatives of the original grantee and the said writ petition is pending consideration before this Court.

¶50

In the meanwhile, dispute arises with regard to enter the name of the parties in the mutation register and respondent No.2 by order dated 22.02.2024, ordered that, the MR Nos.15/1983-84. 11/83-84, 47/83-84, 17/83-84 and 20/83-84 have to be continued. The said order is impugned in this writ petition.

¶51

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:20211 WP No. 8661 of 2024

¶52

I have heard Sri Prakash Timmanna Hebbar,

¶53

learned counsel for the petitioner; Smt. B.P. Radha, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Sri S.M.Sreerama Reddy, learned counsel for the

¶54

respondent Nos. 5 to 11.

¶55

Having Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petitioner and contesting respondents herein claim to be the owner of the land which has been purchased by Kempaiah (father of the petitioner) as per registered Sale Deed dated 14.12.1971 (Annexure-B). The land purchased by the late Kempaiah has been question before this court by the alleged legal representatives of the grantee in W.P.No.7154 of 2022, and therefore, the rights of the petitioner as well as contesting respondents is to be determined only after the conclusion of the proceedings in W.P.No.7154 of 2022 and as such, the finding recorded by the respondent No.2 is just and

¶56

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:20211 WP No. 8661 of 2024

¶57

proper in view of declaration of law made by this court in W.P.No.16197 of 2022 and same was confirmed by

¶58

this Court W.A No.959 of 2023 dated 19.09.2023. In that view of the matter, as the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the title in respect of the property in question and as the petitioner and respondents have to await the result of W.P.No.7154 of 2022, pending before this court. I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed . Needless to say that observation made by this court in the preset writ petition with regard to revenue entries will be subject to the result of writ petition in W.P.No. 7154 of 2022.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56

Sri. K. Chikkanna v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. K. Chikkanna v. 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

Sri Nanjanayaka Vs the Deputy Commissioner

C. Somashekaraiah Vs the State of Karnataka

K. Thimmaiah Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Zilla Harijana Shishitha Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr P Padmavathi Rao Vs the Tahsildar

K a Krishnamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka