Smt Sukhaveniyamma Vs the Government of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Smt Sukhaveniyamma Vs the Government of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed with directions: respondent No.3 - Tahasildar to forthwith send all requisite papers (decree drawn in RFA No.1382/2005, the Apex Court judgment in SLP (Civil) No.21393-21394/2013, and this order) along with representations to respondent No.2 - Assistant Director of Land Records within two weeks of receipt of order copy; respondent No.2 shall on receipt ensure proper demarcation is done and boundaries fixed in terms of the decree, completing the exercise within three months from receipt of the proposal.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents must measure the land held by the petitioners and fix boundaries as per the decree passed by the High Court in RFA No.1382/2005, without any further enquiry into the petitioners' entitlement. +1 more

Court's answer

The rights of the parties have been dealt with, decided and given a quietus by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, as clearly evident from paragraph 13 thereof.

Ratio / Principle

The rights and title of the petitioners over the subject land stand firmly established under the decree in RFA No.1382/2005 as affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court; consequently, there is no scope for any further enquiry or reassessment by the respondent authorities regarding the petitioners' entitlement.

Key takeaways

A fresh grant was made in favour of the CRPF — recorded by this Court as admeasuring 253 acres in Sy. No.55 — and that specific portion stands categorically excluded from the properties held by the petitioners' father as stated in paragraph 13(ii) of the Apex Court's judgment.ratio¶51
Boundary fixation pursuant to the decree is a ministerial act meant to give effect to the judicial decree and not an opportunity for the authorities to reopen settled issues; any attempt to conduct further enquiry under the pretense of fixing boundaries would amount to a direct contravention of the Apex Court's judgment.ratio¶54

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 read with 227 of the Constitution filed by the legal heirs of late P. Srinivas Reddy (Writ Petition No.1745 of 2024, KLR-RES) seeking measurement of their land and fixation of boundaries in terms of the decree in RFA No.1382/2005, by which the Trial Court's judgment in O.S.No.211/1997 was set aside, their ancestor was declared absolute owner of schedule 'A' property, and entitlement to recover possession of schedule 'B' property from the Deputy Inspector General, CRPF, Yelahanka was recognised — the decree having been confirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.21393-21394/2013. The learned AGA contended that the Tahsildar must first hold an enquiry into the genuineness of the grant and issue Form Nos.1 to 5 before the Assistant Director of Land Records could fix boundaries. Relying on paragraph 13 of the Apex Court's judgment, under which the rights of the parties were dealt with, decided and given a quietus, the Court held that the petitioners' rights and title stood firmly established; the fresh CRPF grant in Sy. No.55 was categorically excluded from the properties of the petitioners' father; boundary fixation is a ministerial act to give effect to the judicial decree, leaving no scope for further enquiry or reassessment of entitlement. Censuring the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk for inaction on the representation dated 31.03.2023 despite the undertaking in CCC No.143/2018 — observing that exemplary costs were warranted and recommending departmental enquiry — the Court nevertheless exercised leniency on the learned AGA's assurance, with a stern warning of stringent action upon future non-compliance. Writ allowed: the Tahsildar to transmit the decree, the Apex Court judgment and the instant order to the Assistant Director of Land Records within two weeks, and the latter to demarcate and fix boundaries within three months thereafter.

NC: 2025:KHC:1270 WP No. 1745 of 2024

1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.1745 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

SMT.SUKHAVENIYAMMA W/O LATE SRINIVAS REDDY AGED 69 YEARS

S.BABU REDDY S/O LATE SRINIVAS REDDY AGED 52 YEARS

PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2 RESIDING AT TARALU VILLAGE AND POST UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK-560 062

Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: High Court of Karnataka

S. PREMA

D/O LATE SRINIVAS REDDY AGED 55 YEARS R/AT NO.991, 7^TH CROSS 16^TH MAIN ROAD, 2^ND STAGE BTM LAYOUT BENGALURU-560076

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. S SHAKER SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:1270 WP No. 1745 of 2024

CHIEF REVENUE SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA

BENGALURU-560 001

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK KR CIRCLE

BENGALURU-560001

TAHASILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK KG ROAD BENGALURU-560009

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 READ WITH 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN TO MEASURE THE LAND OF THE PETITIONERS AND FIX THE BOUNDARIES AS PER THE DECREE PASSED BY THIS HONBLE HIGH COURT IN RFA NO.1382/2005, ACCORDING TO LAW AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

This captioned writ petition is filed seeking certain

directives to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to measure the land

held by the petitioners and fix the boundaries in terms of

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:1270 WP No. 1745 of 2024

the decree passed by this Court in RFA No.1382/2005 as per Annexure-G.

2. Facts leading to the case are as under;

The petitioners are the legal heirs of one P.Srinivas Reddy. The right and title of P.Srinivas Reddy was the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.211/1997. The decree

granted in favour of the petitioners’ ancestor namely P.Srinivas Reddy is upheld by this Court in RFA No.1382/2005 and the same is confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No.21393-21394/2013. In terms of the decree obtained by the petitioners’ ancestor P.Srinivas Reddy, the present petitioners, more particularly, petitioner No.2 submitted a detailed representation dated 31.03.2023, which is addressed to respondent No.3 – Tahasildar to fix boundaries by taking cognizance of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No.21393-21394/2013 and also undertaken given by the respondents in the contempt proceedings bearing CCC No.143/2018.

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1270 WP No. 1745 of 2024

3. Learned AGA referring the writ papers has contended that unless respondent No.3 – Tahasildar holds an enquiry in regard to genuineness of the grant and issues Form Nos.1 to 5, respondent No.2 - The Assistant Director of Land Records cannot undertake to exercise of fixing boundaries in respect of the petition land.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned AGA. Perused the records, more particularly, the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No.21393-21394/2013.

5. On bare perusal of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is of the view that the rights of the parties is dealt, decided and given a quietus, which is clearly evident from para No.13 of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court. This Court, therefore, deems it fit to cull out the relevant paragraph No.13, which is extracted and reads as under;

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:1270 WP No. 1745 of 2024

"13. From the material which has been placed on the record and the submission of the learned counsel, it has emerged before the Court that:

(i) In modification of the original grant of land to the CRPF which admeasured 253 acres, a fresh grant of land admeasuring 220 acres comprised in Survey No.55 has been made by the State government of Karnataka to the CRPF on 17 December 2008;

(ii) The first respondent executed the decree passed in the First Appeal by the High Court of Karnataka and pursuant to a warrant of possession, possession of the land forming the subject matter of the decree was handed over to the first respondent;

(iii) The land which has been allotted to the petitioner on 17 December 2008 is vacant and free of all encumbrances and does not include the suit property."

6. Upon a meticulous examination of the findings recorded by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:1270 WP No. 1745 of 2024

unequivocally satisfied that the rights of the petitioners’ father, namely P. Srinivasa Reddy, have been affirmed and upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court. This affirmation stems from the decision rendered by this Court in RFA No.1382/2005, which set aside the Trial Court's judgment and declared P. Srinivasa Reddy as the absolute owner of the schedule ‘A’ property. Furthermore, this Court explicitly recognized his entitlement to recover possession of the schedule ‘B’ property from Defendant No.3, identified as the Deputy Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force, Yelahanka, Bangalore. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in paragraph 13 of its judgment, unequivocally clarified that a fresh grant was made in favor of the CRPF for an extent of 253 acres in Sy. No.55. This specific portion was categorically excluded from the properties held by the petitioners’ father, as stated in paragraph 13(ii) of the said judgment. The findings leave no room for ambiguity regarding the petitioners’ rights over the subject property.

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1270 WP No. 1745 of 2024

7. In light of the unambiguous observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph 13, it becomes abundantly clear that the rights and title of the petitioners over the subject land stand firmly established. Consequently, there is no scope for any further enquiry or reassessment by the respondent authorities regarding the petitioners' entitlement to the land in question. The decree passed by this Court in RFA No.1382/2005, as affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, provides a comprehensive adjudication of the rights, leaving no room for deviation or reconsideration. Following this, the petitioners have submitted a detailed representation requesting the fixation of boundaries in accordance with the decree. It is pertinent

to note that such a process of boundary fixation is a ministerial act meant to give effect to the judicial decree and not an opportunity for the authorities to reopen settled issues. Any attempt by the respondents to conduct further enquiry under the pretense of fixing boundaries would amount to a direct contravention of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1270 WP No. 1745 of 2024

8. Despite the petitioners’ representation dated

31.03.2023, the Revenue Authorities, particularly

respondent No.3 – Tahsildar, has exhibited an alarming degree of inaction and indifference. This blatant laxity, coupled with a refusal to comply with the settled legal position, is a glaring instance of abuse of power. Such conduct undermines the adjudicated rights of the petitioners and displays an alarming disregard for judicial orders. Moreover, respondent No.3 – Tahsildar’s failure to act on the representation also appears to violate the undertaking provided during contempt proceedings, further exacerbating the situation. This Court is compelled to note that such behavior warrants the imposition of exemplary costs on the respondent No.3 – Tahsildar for demonstrating a lack of diligence and dereliction of duty. Furthermore, this Court finds it appropriate to recommend the initiation of departmental enquiry against respondent No.3 to ensure accountability and adherence to the rule of law.

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:1270 WP No. 1745 of 2024

9. However, during the hearing, the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) has assured this Court that the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court will be duly considered, and the boundaries of the subject property will be fixed in strict compliance with the decree and in accordance with the law. While this assurance has prompted the Court to exercise leniency, it comes with a stern warning to respondent No.3 – Tahsildar. The Tahsildar is directed to strictly adhere to the judgments rendered by the Constitutional Courts and Competent Civil Courts, failing which this Court will not hesitate to take stringent action in the future. This leniency should not be misconstrued as tolerance for noncompliance, but rather an opportunity for the respondents to rectify their course of action and honor their legal obligations.

10. With these observations, this Court proceeds to pass the following;

10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:1270 WP No. 1745 of 2024

ORDER

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

(ii) Respondent No.3 – Tahasildar is forthwith required to send all requisite papers, more particularly, decree drawn by this Court in RFA No.1382/2005 and the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No.21393-21394/2013 as well as the order passed by this Court along with representations to the jurisdictional Assistant Director of Land Records – respondent No.2 to fix boundaries in terms of the decree drawn by this Court in RFA No.1382/2005.

(iii) Respondent No.3 – Tahasildar shall send the proposal along with all requisite records to respondent No.2 - The Assistant Director of Land Records within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of order copy.

11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:1270 WP No. 1745 of 2024

(iv) Respondent No.2 - The Assistant Director of Land Records on receipt of the proposal from respondent No.3 – Tahasildar shall ensure that proper demarcation is done and boundaries are fixed.

(v) This exercise shall be accomplished by respondent No.2 – The Assistant Director of Land Records within a period of three months from the date of proposal received from respondent No.3 - Tahasildar.

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

NBM

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2