Dismissed¶44

Sri M.Thayappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Feb 2025WP/13506/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; WP No. 13506 of 2020 (GM-RES); decided 07.02.2025 by Ms. Justice Jyoti Mulimani; petitioners M.Thayappa and M.Rajanna vs State of Karnataka and others; challenge to Deputy Commissioner's Official Memorandum dated 12.11.2020 (Annexure-M) protecting land in Sy.No.79, Neelasandra village; ownership claim held to be a disputed question of fact not investigable under Articles 226 and 227; prior civil suit dismissed and RFA No.1702/2006 rejected on 30.11.2022; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The law is well settled that disputed questions of fact cannot be investigated under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India; therefore the petitioners' contention about their ownership over the property in question cannot be agitated in a Writ Petition. ¶41

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

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:5631 WP No. 13506 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 13506 OF 2020 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI M.THAYAPPA S/O LATE C.MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶9

SRI M.RAJANNA S/O LATE C.MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶10

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.1, MUNEGOWDA GARDEN, NEELASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 047.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. MADHUSUDAN., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VISWANATHA SETTY.V., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MUZARAI CIVIL WORKS, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION CIRCLE,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:5631 WP No. 13506 of 2020

¶20

PODIUM BLOCK, V.V.TOWER, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶21

THE TAHSILDAR, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU.

¶22

THE TAHSILDAR, RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT ATTACHED TO

¶23

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU.

¶24

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI RAYA RAYA KALYANA MANTAPA GROUP OF TEMPLES, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU.

¶25

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

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. DEVDASS., AAG FOR SRI. MILIND DANGE., AGA A/W SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR., AGA FOR R1 TO 5 & 7; SRI. HARISCHANDRA MOVVAR., ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:5631 WP No. 13506 of 2020

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

Sri.Madhusudan., counsel on behalf of Sri.Viswanatha Setty.V., for the petitioners, Sri.Devdass., AAG for respondents 1 to 5 and 7 and Sri.Harischandra Movvar., counsel for respondent No.6 have appeared in person.

¶34

The Official Memorandum dated:12.11.2020 issued by the second respondent vide Annexure-M is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as setout in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶35

Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.

¶36

The petitioners contends that they are the absolute owners of a portion of a property bearing Sy.No.79. It is significant to note that the petitioners initiated proceedings about their civil rights before the Civil Court by filing a suit. The suit came to be dismissed. Assailing the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court, an appeal was filed before this Court in RFA No.1702/2006 and the appeal also came to be rejected as merit less vide order dated:30.11.2022.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:5631 WP No. 13506 of 2020

¶39

Counsel for the petitioners in presenting his arguments strenuously urged that the petitioners are the absolute owners of portion of a property bearing Sy.No.79. Hence, the Deputy Commissioner has erred in issuing an Official Memorandum for the protection of the property bearing Sy.No.79.

¶40

The Official Memorandum is furnished along with the Writ Petition and the same is marked as Annexure-M. It is dated:12.11.2020. A careful perusal of the same reflects that the Deputy Commissioner has simply stated about the protection of the land in Sy.No.79 situated in Neelasandra village.

¶41

The petitioners contention about their ownership over the property in question cannot be agitated in a Writ Petition, because, it is a disputed question of fact. The law is well settled that the disputed questions of fact cannot be investigated under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. I find no grounds to quash the Official Memorandum. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:5631 WP No. 13506 of 2020

¶44