Smt. R Pushpa Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Smt. R Pushpa Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the properties gifted to the petitioner and her husband under the gift deeds dated 16.02.2002 form part of Sy.Nos.45/1 or 45/5 of Sira village so as to have been included in the layout plans approved in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 5. +1 more

Court's answer

Since there is nothing on record to indicate that the piece of land gifted to the petitioner and her husband formed part of land bearing Sy.Nos.45/1 or 45/5, the petitioner cannot be permitted to contend that her land is situated in Sy.Nos.45/1 or 45/5 and has been included in the layout plan submitted to respondent No.2.

Ratio / Principle

Unless the competent Civil Court declares that the property gifted to the petitioner and her husband by her mother-in-law was in fact relatable to Sy.Nos.45, 45/1 or 45/5, the petitioner cannot be permitted to contend that her land has been included in the layout plans approved in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 5.

Key takeaways

Having instituted O.S. No.46 of 2014 and ultimately withdrawn it with liberty to file a fresh suit, the petitioner cannot put forth the contention that her land was a part of Sy.Nos.45/1 or 45/5.ratio¶¶77
There is no material on record to indicate that the land of the petitioner was a part of Sy.No.45/5 or 45/1 or that she has a right to question the layout plans approved in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 5; consequently, none of the contentions advanced by the petitioner's counsel carries merit.ratio¶¶83
The writ petition is dismissed, there being no merit in any of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the approval of two layout plans by the Town Municipality/Town Planning Authority, Sira — 50 plots in Sy.No.45/5 and 30 plots in Sy.No.45/1 of Sira village — and the mutations made pursuant to a gift deed by respondent No.3 conveying the road areas to the Government. The petitioner claimed that land gifted to her and her husband by her mother-in-law under gift deeds dated 16.02.2002 had been included in the layouts. Held: (i) the registered gift deeds contained no recital that the gifted lands were carved out of Sy.Nos.45/1 or 45/5, describing them only by assessment numbers; (ii) the partition deed dated 06.02.2002 under which the mother-in-law allegedly obtained the property was not placed on record, nor any record showing the survey numbers ever stood in her name; (iii) the petitioner had sued for declaration in O.S. No.46 of 2014 but withdrew it with liberty to file a fresh suit and never did, so she cannot contend her land was part of the survey numbers; and (iv) absent a civil-court declaration that the gifted property is relatable to Sy.Nos.45/45/1/45/5, she cannot question the layout approvals. Writ petition dismissed; liberty to institute a fresh suit expressly left open.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6285 WP No. 28118 of 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 28118 OF 2015 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

1 . SMT. R PUSHPA

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

W/O P R RAMESH AKA RAMANNA

R/O KAMMAGONDANAHALLI

PATTANAYAKANA HALLI

GOWDGERE HOBLI

SIRA TALUKA, SIRA 572 137 DIST TUMKUR

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. V.V.GUNJAL, ADVOCATE )

AND:

1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

TUMKUR 572 101

2 . MEMBER SECRETARY AND COMMISSIONER TOWN PLANNING AUTHORITY

AND NAGAR SABHE, SIRA

SIRA 572 137

3 . P S NARAYANAPPA

AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS S/O P M SIDDAPPA R/O SRI RANGA NILAYA BALAJI NAGAR MAIN ROAD OPPOSITE DR CHIDANANDAPPA S CLINIC SIRA 572 137, DIST TUMKUR .

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6285 WP No. 28118 of 2015

4 . SMT NAGARATHNA W/O P S THYAGRAJA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS C/O P M SIDDAPPA PROP RANGANATH OIL MILL

BALAJI NAGAR, SIRA 572 137

5 . SUMAN P THYAGRAJA

S/O P S THYAGRAJA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS C/O P M SIDDAPPA PROP RANGANATH OIL MILL BALAJI NAGAR, SIRA 572 137

6 . SIRA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN

SIRA - 572 137, DIST. TUMKUR

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA., AGA FOR R-1; SRI. S.RAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-6; SRI.R.B.SADASIVAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA.K., ADVOCATE FOR R-4 AND R-5)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-B APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE R-2 TOWN MUNICIPALITY, SIRA IN SY.No.45/5 OR SIRA VILLAGE AND ANNEXURE-C THE LAYOUT PLAN AS APPROVED WHEREIN R-4 & 5 HAVE EARMARKED 50 PLOTS AND APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE R-2 TOWN MUNICIPALITY, SIRA VIDE ANNEXURE-E. ORDER AND ANNEXURE-F IS THE LAYOUT PLAN WHEREIN 30 PLOTS HAVE BEEN EARMARKED IS SY.No.45/1 OF SIRA AS BEING APPROVED ILLEGALLY AND WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND IN VIOLATION OF SATATUOTORY PROVISIONS OF KTCP ACT AND KMC ACT 1962 BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, ETC.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 23.01.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6285 WP No. 28118 of 2015

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

CAV ORDER

The petitioner is challenging the approval accorded to a layout plan in respect of Survey No.45/5 of Sira village and Survey No.45/1 also of Sira village. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the mutations made pursuant to the gift deed executed by respondent No.3 in favour of the Government in respect of the areas earmarked for roads in the said layout plan.

The petitioner is also seeking for a mandamus to be issued to respondent No.2 to conduct a spot inspection and survey of land bearing Sy.Nos.45/5 and 45/1 and to take possession of the areas surrendered for civic amenities, parks, roads, and exclude the portion of the petitioner’s land measuring 297’ * 160’ in Sy.No.45 of Sira village.

The pleadings and the written submissions of the petitioner indicate the following:

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6285 WP No. 28118 of 2015

(a) The land bearing Sy.No.45/5 measuring 03 acres

14 guntas was permitted to be used for non agricultural purposes on the request of respondent Nos.4 and 5 by the Deputy Commissioner, through an order dated 10.01.2011.

(b) On the basis of the said permission, respondent Nos.4 and 5 sought for sanction of a layout plan with respondent No.2, i.e., the Town Planning Authority. The Planning Authority on consideration of the application proceeded to accord sanction to the layout plan which permitted formation of 50 sites.

(c) Similarly, in respect of an extent of 02 acres 123/4^th guntas in Sy.No.45/1, the Deputy Commissioner granted permission to use the land for non-agricultural purposes i.e., residential purpose by passing an order on 31.08.2013.

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6285 WP No. 28118 of 2015

(d) On the basis of this permission, respondent No.3 proceeded to seek for approval of a layout plan in respect of this extent of 02 acres 12-3/4^th guntas and respondent No.2—Planning Authority proceeded to accord sanction to the layout plan permitting formation of 30 sites.

(e) It is the approval to these two layout plans, which were obtained by respondent Nos.3 to 5, in which about 80 sites are to be formed, are the subject matter of the instant petition.

It is the case of the petitioner that the land which was gifted to her and her husband by her mother-inlaw has been included in these layout plans and therefore, the grant of permission to form a layout, in which her land is included, is illegal.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.P.V.Gunjal, both orally as well as through his written submissions, has put forth the contention

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6285 WP No. 28118 of 2015

that the family of respondent Nos.3 to 5 did not own the property to the extent that they had sought for approval from the Planning Authority and they had basically included the land of the petitioner. Therefore, the entire process of culminating the approval of the layout plan and the subsequent relinquishment of that portion of land in favour of the State was illegal.

In my view, the prayers made in the present writ petition do not merit acceptance for the following reasons:

The petitioner contends that her mother-in-law executed two gift deeds on 16.02.2002. The first gift deed was executed in favour of her husband P.R.Ramesh and was in respect of the property 142 +112½ measuring 165 * feet. 2

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6285 WP No. 28118 of 2015

The second gift deed is in respect of an extent of 47 + 25 measuring 165 * feet. 2

However, both these registered gift deeds do not contain any recital that these lands, which were gifted to the petitioner and her husband, were carved out of Sy.Nos.45/1 or 45/5. The properties are described in the schedule as properties bearing Assessment Nos.2824:A:2722:A:4927:A and 2824:2722:4927.

In the gift deed, there is a recital that this property was fallen to the share of the petitioner’s mother-inlaw under a partition deed dated 06.02.2002. However, this partition deed is not placed on record.

Be that as it may, since there is nothing on record to indicate that this particular piece of land formed part of land bearing Sy.Nos.45/1 or 45/5, the petitioner cannot be permitted to contend that her land is situated in Sy.Nos.45/1 or 45/5 and this has been

8 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6285 WP No. 28118 of 2015

included in the layout plan submitted to respondent No.2.

It may also be pertinent to state here that petitioner admits that respondent No.3 had instituted a suit in O.S. No.35 of 2014 against the husband of the petitioner seeking for a decree of injunction. It is also admitted by the petitioner that petitioner along with her husband had instituted a suit in O.S. No.46 of 2014 which was a suit for declaration and injunction. The parties herein also admit that both the suits were clubbed together.

The learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5 have placed on record the copy of the order dated 31.10.2014 passed in the said suits, which indicate that respondent No.3—P.S.Naraynappa had filed a memo seeking for withdrawal of his suit (OS No.35 of 2014) as not pressed and the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn. The said order also indicates that the petitioner—R.Pushpa had filed an application for

9 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6285 WP No. 28118 of 2015

withdrawal of her suit and for reserving liberty to file a fresh suit in O.S. No.46 of 2014, which was filed by her and her husband for declaration. The order copy indicates that her application was granted and O.S. No.46 of 2014 was dismissed as withdrawn reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh suit.

It is admitted by the petitioner that despite this liberty, no fresh suit has been filed.

It may be pertinent to state here that these suits were relevant to Sy.No.45/1 and 45/5 of Sira village and it is therefore clear that the petitioner had filed a suit in O.S. No.46 of 2014 seeking for declaratory decree in respect of her property which she claims was a part of Sy.Nos.45/1 or 45/5.

If the petitioner had instituted O.S. No.46 of 2014 and had ultimately withdrawn the same with liberty to file a fresh suit, the petitioner cannot put forth the

10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6285 WP No. 28118 of 2015

contention that her land was a part of Sy.Nos.45/1 or 45/5.

In other words, unless the competent Civil Court declares that the property that was gifted to her and her husband by her mother-in-law was in fact relatable to Sy.Nos.45 or 45/1 or 45/5, the petitioner cannot be permitted to contend that her land has been included in the layout plans approved in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 5.

It may also be pertinent to state here that the petitioner has not produced any records to indicate that the property bearing Sy.Nos.45/1 or 45/5 or 45 stood in the name of her mother-in-law at any point of time.

In other words, there is no material on record to indicate that the land of the petitioner was a part of Sy.No.45/5 or 45/1 and that she has a right to question the layout plans approved in favour of

11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6285 WP No. 28118 of 2015

respondent Nos.3 to 5. I am therefore of the view that there is no merit in any of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the writ petition is therefore dismissed .

It will however have to be stated here that it would be open for the petitioner to institute a suit on the strength of the liberty granted to her in O.S. No.46 of

2014, if so permissible in law, as of now.

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

RK

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Approval granted by respondent No.2 (Town Municipality/Town Planning Authority, Sira) to two layout plans: Annexure-B approval and Annexure-C layout plan with 50 plots earmarked by R-4 and R-5 in Sy.No.45/5 of Sira village, and Annexure-E order and Annexure-F layout plan with 30 plots in Sy.No.45/1 of Sira.¶¶35
Town Municipality / Town Planning Authority, Sira (respondent No.2)
Prior proceeding
Land bearing Sy.No.45/5 measuring 03 acres 14 guntas was permitted to be used for non-agricultural purposes on the request of respondent Nos.4 and 5 by the Deputy Commissioner through an order dated 10.01.2011.¶¶47
Prior proceeding
On that permission, respondent Nos.4 and 5 sought sanction of a layout plan from respondent No.2 (Town Planning Authority), which accorded sanction permitting formation of 50 sites.¶¶48
Prior proceeding
In respect of an extent of 02 acres 12-3/4 guntas in Sy.No.45/1, the Deputy Commissioner granted permission for non-agricultural (residential) use by order dated 31.08.2013.¶¶49
Prior proceeding
On that permission, respondent No.3 sought approval of a layout plan for that extent and respondent No.2 (Planning Authority) accorded sanction permitting formation of 30 sites.¶¶52
Prior proceeding
The petitioner contends her mother-in-law executed two registered gift deeds on 16.02.2002, one in favour of her husband P.R.Ramesh and one in her favour; the deeds describe the properties by assessment numbers and contain no recital linking them to Sy.Nos.45/1 or 45/5.¶¶60
Prior proceeding
The gift deed recites that the property fell to the share of the petitioner's mother-in-law under a partition deed dated 06.02.2002, but that partition deed was not placed on record.¶¶65
Prior proceeding
Mutations were made pursuant to a gift deed executed by respondent No.3 in favour of the Government in respect of areas earmarked for roads in the layout plan; the petitioner is aggrieved by these mutations.¶¶41
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.3 instituted O.S. No.35 of 2014 against the petitioner's husband seeking a decree of injunction; the petitioner along with her husband instituted O.S. No.46 of 2014 for declaration and injunction; both suits (relevant to Sy.No.45/1 and 45/5) were clubbed together.¶¶70
Prior proceeding
By order dated 31.10.2014 in the clubbed suits, respondent No.3's suit (OS No.35 of 2014) was dismissed as withdrawn as not pressed.¶¶71
Prior proceeding
By the same order dated 31.10.2014, the petitioner's application for withdrawal of O.S. No.46 of 2014 (declaration suit) was granted and the suit was dismissed as withdrawn, reserving liberty to file a fresh suit; the petitioner admits no fresh suit has been filed.¶¶74
Prior proceeding
It is admitted by the petitioner that despite the liberty reserved, no fresh suit has been filed.¶¶75