State of Karnataka Vs Smt. Pilla Chennamma

SMT. PILLA CHENNAMMA D/O. LATE MUNIKEMPANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NEAR DODDAMMA TEMPLE KATTIGENAHALLI YELAHANKA HOBLI YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶24

RAJIV GANDHI HOUSING CORPORATION LTD., 9^TH FLOOR KHB COMPLEX CAUVERY BHAVAN K.G. ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009 REP. BY HEMANTH RAJ P., EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI SHIVARUDRAPPA SHETKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. SHILPA RANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶27

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12/02/2024 PASSED IN WP NO.870/2023 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND DISMISS THE SAID WRIT

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12688-DB WA No. 1468 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 497 of 2024

¶29

PETITION WITH EXEMPLARY COST AND ISSUE ANY OTHER ORDER/DIRECTIONS.

¶30

IN CCC NO. 497/2024

¶31

BETWEEN:

¶32

SMT. PILLA CHENNAMMA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, D/O. MUNIKEMPANNA, R/AT NEAR DODDAMMA TEMPLE, KATTIGENAHALLI, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶33

...COMPLAINANT

¶34

(BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI SHIVARUDRAPPA SHETKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶35

AND:

¶36

SRI. DAYANANDA. K. A. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, YELAHANKA DIVISION BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE - 560 064.

¶37

SRI ANIL KUMAR AROLIKAR THE TAHASILDAR, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560 064.

¶38

...ACCUSED

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:12688-DB WA No. 1468 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 497 of 2024

¶41

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

¶42

...PROFORMA RESPONDENT

¶43

(BY SRI KIRAN V. RON, AAG A/W SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

¶44

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971 R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, BY THE COMPLAINANT, WHEREIN PRAYS THAT THE HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO TAKE SUITABLE ACTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED BY INITIATING THE CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS FOR WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED 12.02.2024 PASSED IN W.P.NO.870/2023 (KLR-RES) BY THIS HON'BLE COURT AT ANNEXUR-A.

¶45

THIS APPEAL AND PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELILMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶46

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12688-DB WA No. 1468 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 497 of 2024

¶48

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶49

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)

¶50

The appellant State, by filing this appeal, seeks to call in question judgment and order of learned Single Judge dated 12^th February 2024. Thereby, the petition of the respondent-original petitioner was allowed. Endorsement dated 28^th November 2022 passed by the Tahsildar came to be set aside.

¶51

1.1 The Tahsildar and the Deputy Commissioner were directed to enter the name of the petitioner in the record of rights. The directions issued about the overlapping of the land of the petitioner in favour of the respondent-Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation was recalled and the authorities to required to ensure that the same shall not overlap with the land belonging to the petitioner.

¶52

In the main petition, the prayer was to set aside the endorsement dated 28^th November 2022 whereby the Tahsildar took view that since the petitioner had not submitted documents and it came to the knowledge that the land was not in enjoyment of the petitioner, the prayer could not be granted. It was further

¶53

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12688-DB WA No. 1468 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 497 of 2024

¶54

prayed to direct the respondents to continue the RTC entries in the computer record and issued khatha in the name of the petitioner in respect of the land in question, which was survey No.28 admeasuring 4 Acres at Kattigenahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Devanahalli Taluka.

¶55

The case of the petitioner was that the land in question was granted to the father of the petitioner in the year 1961-62 who had been cultivating the land. The grant certificate was issued. The father of the petitioner cultivated the land during his life time and he was also issued Saguvali Chit in his name. It was the case that the father of the petitioner died on 11^th January 1996. The revenue records were amended by inserting the name of the petitioner in the year 1996-97. It was stated that the petitioner continued to be in enjoyment of the land.

¶56

3.1 The revenue entries continued in favour of the petitioner till 1999. It appears that when the computerized RTC was introduced, the name of the petitioner from the records got disappeared. The petitioner had an occasion to file Writ Petition No.12224 of 2022 which was allowed by this court on 29^th September 2022 and the respondent was directed to pass necessary orders on the

¶57

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12688-DB WA No. 1468 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 497 of 2024

¶58

representation given by the petitioner. Despite subsequent request of the petitioner, the order was not complied with and the khatha in the name of the petitioner which was already in existence prior to the computerized RTC, was not reinserted.

¶59

3.2 While opposing the prayer of the petitioner, the stand of the respondent authorities was inter alia that in Writ Appeal No.373 of 2023, the Division Bench directed to file affidavit by showing the reference of the relevant records. In the affidavit dated 28^th July 2023, it was submitted that 17 documents were filed and it was contended that scanned copy of the documents did not justify the entering of the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of the land.

¶60

Learned Single Judge with a specific finding, which is extracted hereunder from paragraph 7 of the judgment, negatived the contention of the respondent-State,

¶61

“…..It was also clarified that earlier the jurisdiction of Kattigenahalli village fell within the limits of Tahsildar of Jala Hobli, which was within the jurisdiction of Devanahalli Taluk. However, after bifurcation, the village in question falls within the jurisdiction of the Tahsildar, Yalahanka Taluk. Nevertheless, this Court had once again secured the original Grant Register and after perusing the

¶62

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12688-DB WA No. 1468 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 497 of 2024

¶63

same, this Court found that at page No.63 there is an entry at Sl.No.167 showing the name of Sri. Munikempanna having been granted 4 acres of land. The original record was kept in safe custody of this Court.”

¶64

4.1 Yet another faint attempt was made on behalf of the State

¶65

authorities to submit that the grant register might have been manipulated and that there was no support for the case of the petitioner from the documents such as Issue Register. The court directed the respondents to produce the original Issue Register and the same was produced before the court. The name of the grantee-Sri. Munikempanna was found in the original Issue Register and there was also reference of the order of the Tahsildar passed in the year 1961-62 for grant of the land.

¶66

4.2 Learned Single Judge observed thus in paragraph 9,

¶67

“…After having perused the original Grant Register as well as Saguvali Chit Issue Register, this Court is required to consider the submissions of the learned Government Advocate who had contended that the Record of Rights (Pahanies) which were furnished by the petitioner were all hand written Pahanies, which were concocted and in the original revenue records, no such Pahani was made out in the name of Sri. Munikempanna.”

¶68

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12688-DB WA No. 1468 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 497 of 2024

¶69

4.3 Learned Single Judge noted in paragraph 11 to negative the contention of the respondent that the record was manipulated, observing that original Grant Register and original Issue Register contained the name of the petitioner,

¶70

“…In the present case, this Court having verified from the original Grant Register and the original Issue Register found the name of Sri. Munikempanna entered and therefore, the counter argument on the part of the learned Government Advocate that the entries could have been manipulated cannot be accepted.”

¶71

Learned Single Judge had secured original Issue Register and Mutation Register as well as the Grant Register to verify and find therefrom that the name of the grantee-Sri. Munikempanna was entered. The Saguvali Chit was also issued. The name of the petitioner after the death of Sri. Munikempanna-the father was entered in the revenue records. The petitioner was entitled to get his name re-entered, which went missing during the process of digitalization. There was no room to doubt the claim of the petitioner once the original record was verified by learned Single Judge and the findings were accordingly reached.

¶72

10 -

¶73

NC: 2025:KHC:12688-DB WA No. 1468 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 497 of 2024

¶74

The impugned judgment and order is eminently proper and

¶75

legal. No case whatsoever is made out for interference.

¶76

The appeal is hereby dismissed.

¶77

In view of dismissal of the appeal, the contempt petition shall also stand disposed of with a direction that the directions of learned Single Judge shall be complied with by the authorities concerned within two weeks from the date of receipt of the present order, to be served on the competent authority by the petitioners.

¶78

In view of dismissal of the appeal, the interlocutory application if any, would not survive and it stands accordingly disposed of.

¶79

Sd/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶80

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶81

KPS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

State of Karnataka v. Smt. Pilla Chennamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Karnataka v. Smt. Pilla Chennamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Y Krishnamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Prashant Vs State of Karnataka

State Load Dispatch Centre Operated by Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited Vs M/S Shree Renuka Sugars Limited

K T Lakshmi Narasimhaiah Vs Sri Thushar Girinath

S N Thippeswamy Vs the Director Agricultural Marketing

A v Nagarajan Vs Mr. C.R. Aravind