Dismissed¶45

Sri M Thayappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2025WA/272/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC writ appeal dismissed; title/ownership disputes not entertainable under Article 226; Official Memorandum 12.11.2020 No.DVS(A)/CR-10/1989-90; Survey No.79 Neelasandra Village; Sri Dharmarayaswamy Temple Thigalarpet; compound construction; Rs.26 lakhs first instalment; police protection; W.P. No.13506/2020 dismissed 07.02.2025; RFA No.1702/2006 rejected 30.11.2022; disputed questions of fact; liberty to agitate rights before civil court.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ appeal is dismissed, with liberty observed for the parties to agitate their rights before the civil court. ¶45

Sri M Thayappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ appeal is dismissed, with liberty observed for the parties to agitate their rights before the civil court.

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether titular (title) questions and the parties' asserted civil rights of ownership over part of land Survey No.79, Neelasandra Village, involving disputed questions of fact, can be agitated in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. +1 more

¶44

Court's answer

It is a trite principle that titular (title) questions cannot be agitated nor gone into in proceedings of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

The challenge to the official memorandum was of a nature involving title claims by the parties; therefore, the writ petition was rightly not entertained.

¶44

Key takeaways

When the parties are asserting their civil rights of ownership over the property, such questions cannot be agitated in the writ petition.ratio¶43
The issue involves disputed questions of fact, as observed by the learned Single Judge and endorsed by this Court.ratio¶43
The impugned official memorandum deals only with the aspect of protection of the land bearing Survey No.79 situated in Neelasandra Village, regarding which rival claims about ownership are advanced; these facts are not in dispute.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (GM-RES) dismissed (Division Bench, per Chief Justice N. V. Anjaria, with Justice K. V. Aravind). The appellants, claiming absolute ownership over a portion of land bearing Survey No.79, Neelasandra Village, Bengaluru — claimed by Sri Dharmarayaswamy Temple, Thigalarpet — had challenged the Official Memorandum dated 12.11.2020 (No.DVS(A)/CR-10/1989-90) of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, providing administrative sanction for construction of a compound on the land, release of Rs.26 lakhs as first instalment, and construction under police protection. Their civil suit and Regular First Appeal No.1702 of 2006 (rejected 30.11.2022) had already failed. Holding: titular questions and parties' asserted civil rights of ownership, involving disputed questions of fact, cannot be agitated in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution; the learned Single Judge's dismissal of W.P. No.13506/2020 was eminently proper; no case for interference; parties left free to agitate rights before the civil court with no opinion expressed on merits; interlocutory application disposed of as not surviving.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:15181-DB WA No. 272 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT APPEAL NO. 272 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI M. THAYAPPA S/O. LATE C. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED.

¶11

SRI M. RAJANNA S/O. LATE C. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT No.1 MUNEGOIWDA GARDEN NEELASANDRA BENGALURU - 560 047.

¶12

…APPELLANTS

¶13

Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(BY SRI S. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU - 560 002. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶18

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MUZARAI CIVIL WORKS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION CIRCLE PODIUM BLOCK V.V. TOWER DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15181-DB WA No. 272 of 2025

¶20

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MUZRAI CIVIL WORKS MUNICIPAL CORPORATON CIRCLE PODIUM BLOCK V.V. TOWER DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶21

THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 003.

¶22

THE TAHSILDAR RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT ATTACHED TO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶23

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER SRI RAYA RAYA KALYANA MANTAPA GROUP OF TEMPLES CHAMARAJAPET BENGALURU - 560 018.

¶24

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE KASTURBA ROAD CUBBON PARK BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA FOR R1 TO 5 & 7 SRI HARISHCHANDRA MOVVAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R6)

¶26

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.02.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION No.13506/2020 (GM-RES) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2020 BEARING No.DVS(A)/CR-10/1989-90 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFs AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:15181-DB WA No. 272 of 2025

¶29

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

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

¶31

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶33

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

¶34

Heard learned advocate Mr. S. Rajashekar for the appellants-original petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. Naveen Chandrashekar for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 7 and learned advocate Mr. Harishchandra Movvar for respondent No.6.

¶35

The dispute centers round the land property bearing Survey No.79 in Neelasandra Village. The said property is claimed to be belonging to Sri Dharmarayaswamy Temple in Thigalarpet, Bengaluru. On the other hand, the appellants-petitioners assert that they have absolute ownership over the portion of the land of the said property.

¶36

The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru issued the Official Memorandum dated 12.11.2020 which was

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15181-DB WA No. 272 of 2025

¶38

regarding protection of the said land. It was stated in the said official memorandum that administrative sanction was given for construction of a compound on the land which is stated to be belonging to the temple, disputed by the petitioners in respect of the part of the land.

¶39

3.1 The official memorandum mentions that first installment of Rs.26 lakhs has been released towards cost of construction of the work. The officers were directed to construct the compound under police protection. It was this official memorandum which was challenged by the petitioners before learned Single Judge contending their ownership right over the part of the property.

¶40

While dismissing the petition, learned Single Judge observed that the petitioners have initiated proceedings in the civil court about their right to claim over the part of the property. The civil suit which was instituted came to be dismissed. It is recorded that the appeal filed before this court which was Regular First Appeal No.1702 of 2006 also came to be rejected by the order dated 30.11.2022.

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15181-DB WA No. 272 of 2025

¶42

These facts are not in dispute. As rightly observed by learned Single Judge, the impugned official memorandum only deals with the aspect of the protection of the land bearing Survey No.79 situated in Neelasandra Village in respect of which, the rival claims are advanced about the ownership. The reasoning adopted by learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition could be said to be eminently proper and legal.

¶43

5.1 When the parties are asserting their civil rights of ownership over the property, such questions cannot be agitated in the writ petition. It was also rightly observed that the issue involves disputed questions of fact.

¶44

It is trite principle that titular questions cannot be agitated nor can be gone into in the proceedings of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The challenge to the said official memorandum was in such nature involving title claims by the parties. Therefore, the writ petition was rightly not entertained.

¶45

No case is made out to interfere with the judgment and order of learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:15181-DB WA No. 272 of 2025

¶48

It is always open for the parties to agitate their rights before the civil court in respect of which this court does not express any opinion on merits.

¶49

In view of dismissal of the appeal, the interlocutory

¶50

application would not survive and it stands accordingly disposed of.

¶51

Sd/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶52

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶53

DDU

¶54

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Sri M Thayappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Thayappa v. the State of Karnataka

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

Y R Shanthe Gowda Vs Dr. Manjunath v

M/S Tumkur Grain Merchants Co. Operative Bank Ltd., Vs Mr Ajay Sarathi

Mrs. Leena Pol Menezes Vs M/S Keshav Ram Educational Foundation Trust

State of Karnataka Vs Yogesh K

Mr. Sharanappagouda Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Eramma Vs the Deputy Commissioner