Dismissed

V T Munivenkatappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Jun 2025WP/4771/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged revisional orders regarding the mutation of land which had been altered pursuant to a registered partition deed. The High Court held that as a comprehensive civil suit on the subject land was pending for adjudication of title, no writ interference was called for and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; contentions of parties kept open to be urged in the pending civil suit.

V T Munivenkatappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:19392 WP No. 4771 of 2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 4771 OF 2020 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI V T MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS S/OL ATE SRI. THAMMAIAH @ THAMMAYAPPA,

¶9

RESIDING AT NO.8, VEERSAGARA VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, FORMERLY IN BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, NOW IN YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU - 560064.

¶10

SRI CHAITRA V R AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, D/O LATE SRI V T RAMESH & AND WIFE OF SRI ANJAN

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI HARISH GOWDA V R AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS S/O LATE SRI V T RAMESH

¶13

SRI RANJIT GOWDA V R AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS S/O LATE SRI V T RAMESH

¶14

THE PETITIONERS NO.2 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO 11, VEERASAGARA VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:19392 WP No. 4771 of 2020

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

FORMERLY IN BENGALURU NORTH TALUK NOW IN YELAHANKA TALUK

¶19

BENGALURU - 560064

¶20

…PETITIONERS

¶21

[NOTE: SRI. V.T. RAMESH, SON OF LATE SRI. THAMMAIAH DIED ON 05.06.2019 DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE CASE IN REVISION PETITION NO.155/2014-2015 BEFORE THE 2^ND RESPONDENT AUTHORITY HEREIN, HENCE THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF LATE SRI. V.T. RAMESH ARE IMPLEADED IN THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION AS PETITIONERS NO.2 TO 4]

¶22

(BY SRI. C SHANKAR REDDY., ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY "VIKASA SOUDHA" DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560001

¶25

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT KANDAYA BHAVANA, K G ROAD BENGALURU - 560009

¶26

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVANA, K G ROAD BENGALURU - 560009

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19392 WP No. 4771 of 2020

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

THE TAHASILDAR TALUK OFFICE, YELAHANKA BENGALURU NORTH TALUK PRESENTLY YELAHANKA TALUK BENGALURU - 560064

¶30

SRI NAGESHA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS SON OF LATE SRI MARIYAPPA AND GRANDSON OF SMT LAKSHMAMMA,

¶31

SRI YOGESHA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶32

SON OF LATE SRI MARIYAPPA AND GRANDSON OF SMT LAKSHMAMMA

¶33

SMT GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS DAUGHTER OF LATE SRI RANGAPPA AND LATE SMT LAKSHMAMMA

¶34

SRI MUTHANNA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

¶35

SON OF LATE SRI RANGAPPA AND LATE SMT LAKSHMAMMA

¶36

SRI RANGANATH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS SON OF LATE SMT MUTHAMMA AND GRANDSON OF LATE SMT LAKSHMAMMA

¶37

SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS SON OF LATE SRI RAJANNA AND GRANDSON OF LATE SMT LAKSHMAMMA

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:19392 WP No. 4771 of 2020

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

SRI KEERTHI

¶42

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

¶43

SON OF LATE SRI RAJANNA AND GRANDSON OF LATE SMT LAKSHMAMMA

¶44

SMT SHOBHA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS WIFE OF LATE SRI RAJANNA

¶45

SRI MAHIMARAJU

¶46

AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS SON OF LATE SRI RAJANNA AND GRANDSON OF LATE SMT LAKSHMAMMA

¶47

SMT RATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS DAUGHTER OF LATE SRI RANGAPPA AND LATE SMT LAKSHMAMMA

¶48

SRI CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS SON OF LATE SRI RANGAPPA AND LATE SMT LAKSHMAMMA

¶49

SRI MARUTHI

¶50

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS SON OF LATE SRI RANGAPPA AND LATE SMT LAKSHMAMMA

¶51

SMT BHAGYAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS DAUGHTER OF LATE SRI RANGAPPA AND LATE SMT LAKSHMAMMA

¶52

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:19392 WP No. 4771 of 2020

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

18. SMT VIJAYAMMA

¶55

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS DAUGHTER OF LATE SRI RANGAPPA AND LATE SMT LAKSHMAMMA

¶56

19. SMT SAVITHRAMMA

¶57

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS DAUGHTER OF LATE SRI RANGAPPA AND LATE SMT LAKSHMAMMA

¶58

THE RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 19 ARE RESIDING AT VEERASAGARA VILLAGE, YELAHNKA HOBLI, FORMERLY IN BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, NOW IN YELHANKA TALUK BENGALURU - 560064

¶59

…RESPONDENTS

¶60

[ NOTE: SMT. LAKSHMAMA, WIFE OF LATE SRI. RANGAPPA DIED DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE CASE IN REVISION PETITION NO.155/2014-2015 BEFORE THE 2^ND RESPONDENT AUTHORITY HEREIN, HENCE THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF LATE SMT.LAKSHMAMMA ARE IMPLEADED IN THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION AS RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 19]

¶61

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4., SRI. PRASIDDARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R15, R17 TO R19., SRI. S.R. HEGDE HUDLAMANE, ADVOCATE FOR R16)

¶62

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR CERTIORARI OR DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS OF LIKE

¶63

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:19392 WP No. 4771 of 2020

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

NATURE, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.10.2019, THE ANNEXURE 'C' PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT IN CASE REVISION PETITION NO.155/2014-2015 AND ETC.,

¶66

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶67

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶68

ORAL ORDER

¶69

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶70

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 16.10.2019 (Annexure-C) in R.P.No.155/2014-15 by respondent No.2 and the order dated 07.07.2014 in R.A.(BNA) No.177/2013-14 (Annexure-D) passed by respondent No.3.

¶71

For the purpose of adjudication of the writ petition is concerned, the relevant facts as stated in the petition are as under:

¶72

Petitioner No.1 is the eldest son of Lt. Thammaiah and Sri. V.T. Ramesh is the younger brother of petitioner No.1. The younger brother of petitioner i.e., V.T. Ramesh died on 05.06.2019 and his legal representatives were brought on

¶73

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC:19392 WP No. 4771 of 2020

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

record as petitioner Nos.2 to 4 in this petition. It is also averred in the writ petition that, there was partition in the joint family of the petitioners and his brothers, as per registered partition deed dated 20.11.2003 (Annexure-E) and pursuant to the same, the mutation entries has been changed in M.R.No.30/2003-04 dated 15.07.2004 and M.R.No.31/2004-05 dated 05.04.2005, (Annexures-F and F1) respectively. The said order of change of mutation was challenged by one Lakshmamma, (the legal representatives are respondent Nos.5 to 19). Respondent No.3 vide order dated 07.07.2014 (Annexure-D), allowed the appeal and as such set aside the M.R.No.30/2003-04 and M.R.No.31/2004-05 made in respect of the land in question and as such directed respondent No.4 to effect mutation in favour of the said Lakshmamma (Appellant in R.A.No.177/2013-14).

¶77

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein have preferred R.P.No.155/2014-15 before respondent No.2 herein and the Revisional Authority by order dated 16.10.2019 dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner herein and as such confirmed the order passed by respondent No.3.

¶78

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:19392 WP No. 4771 of 2020

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have presented this writ petition.

¶81

Sri. C. Shankar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that the respondents - Authorities have violated the interim order of this Court and accordingly sought for taking action against the respondents - Authorities concerned.

¶82

Nextly, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that M.R.No.30/2003-04 and M.R.No.31/200405 have been made pursuant to the registered partition deed between the petitioners and therefore as the mutation entries have been made as per the registered partition deed produced at Annexure-E and therefore both authorities have committed error in interfering with the mutation entries which is challenged before respondent No.3 as per Annexure-D. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court.

¶83

Per contra, Sri. S.R.Hegde, learned counsel representing respondent No.16 invited the attention of the Court to Annexure-R16 and submitted that the petitioners herein have filed O.S.No.1318/2021 before the competent Civil

¶84

¶85

NC: 2025:KHC:19392 WP No. 4771 of 2020

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

Court seeking relief of declaration in respect of subject land with consequential relief and the said suit is pending consideration before the Trial Court and therefore he contended that, until the said suit is adjudicated by the Civil Court by determining the title in respect of the subject land in question and as such, no interference is called for in this writ petition.

¶88

He also submitted that, the petitioners herein have filed O.S.No.111/2009 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru and another in O.S.No.752/2006 was filed by the petitioners herein, seeking relief of injunction against the private respondents herein and the said suit came to be dismissed with liberty to the petitioners herein to file comprehensive suit seeking relief of declaration with consequential relief. Accordingly, he submitted that there is no interference is called for.

¶89

Sri. Manjunath K., learned HCGP submitted that no interference is called for in the impugned orders produced at Annexure-C and D respectively and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶90

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:19392 WP No. 4771 of 2020

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

Having taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, it is forthcoming from the writ papers that M.R.No.30/2003-04 and M.R.No.31/2004-05 have been effected by respondent No.4 in terms of the registered partition deed produced at Annexure-E to the writ petition. Thereafter, the said proceedings have been challenged by one Lakshmamma (legal representatives are private respondents Nos.5 to 19), and the respondent - authority after considering the material on record, arrived at a conclusion that the petitioners herein have to establish their right in respect of the subject land since the appellant therein had purchased the schedule property as per the registered sale deed dated 02.09.1957 and nothing is effected in the land records for more than six decades. The said order passed by respondent No.3 is confirmed by respondent No.2. As it is contended by the learned counsel for the parties that, O.S.No.1318/2021 is pending consideration before the Civil Court, which is filed by the petitioners, seeking relief of declaration in respect of the said land is concerned and in that view of the matter, until the adjudication of the rights of the

¶93

11 -

¶94

NC: 2025:KHC:19392 WP No. 4771 of 2020

¶95

HC-KAR

¶96

parties is made in the above suit, I am of the view that no interference is called for in this writ petition.

¶97

It is also submitted by the learned counsel

¶98

appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners herein being defendants in O.S.No.1318/2021 have filed an application before the Civil Court under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC, seeking violation of the orders passed by the Trial Court.

¶99

In that view of the matter since the enquiry is yet to be conducted insofar as the said application is concerned before the Trial Court, I am of the view that no interference is called for in the present petition, as all the contentions of the parties are kept open to be urged in the suit.

¶100

Petition is accordingly, dismissed.

¶101

Pending I.A.No.1/2024 is accordingly disposed of.

¶102

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶103

RKA

V T Munivenkatappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V T Munivenkatappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Parvathamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nagaraju L Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Kamalamma Vs State of Karnataka

Kum Kavya Vs the Government of Karnataka

Smt Lakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Philip Stephen Vs the State of Karnataka