Ramaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER UNDER ANNEXURE-A BEARING RA NO.18/2008-09 DATED 19.12.2009 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AND ANNEXURE-B BEARING NO.42/200910 DATED 08.02.2012 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2.

¶54

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶55

5 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:18826 WP No. 47912 of 2014

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

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

¶59

ORAL ORDER

¶60

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners assailing the Order dated 19.12.2009 in R.A.No.18/2008-09 (Annexure-A) passed by respondent No.3 and the Order dated 08.02.2012 in R.A.No.42/2009-10 (Annexure-B).

¶61

I have heard Sri. R.G. Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Savithramma, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3, and Sri. C. Shankar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 7.

¶62

Sri. R.G. Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the sons of late Bodappa and petitioner No.3 is the grandson of late Bodappa. The land in question bearing Sy.No.No.112/B53 (new No.558) measuring 2 acres of land at Malur Town, Kolar District was granted to father of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 as per Grant Certificate dated 24.05.1961. After the demise of Bodappa, petitioners herein are in possession of the land in question. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that

¶63

6 -

¶64

NC: 2025:KHC:18826 WP No. 47912 of 2014

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

respondent No.4 has made an application seeking transfer of

¶67

khata in respect of the land in question and as such, M.R.No.194/2006-07 was issued by the competent authority and same was challenged before respondent No.3 in R.A.No.18/2008-09. It is also contended that, the respondent No.3 has dismissed the appeal and as such the petitioners herein have preferred R.A.No.42/2009-10 which came to be dismissed by the impugned order. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no discrepancy in so far as measurement of the land in question is concerned and therefore the mutation in M.R.No.49/2000-01 and M.R.No.194/2006-07 and M.R.No.186/2006-07 are illegal and accordingly, sought of interference of this Court.

¶68

Per contra, Sri. C. Shankar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 7 submitted that the petitioners herein have filed O.S.No.5/2016 before the Civil Court seeking relief of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction, which came to be dismissed on 31.03.2018 and thereafter the petitioners herein have filed R.A.No.80/2018 before the First Appellate Court, which came to be dismissed by the Appellate Court by judgment and decree

¶69

7 -

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:18826 WP No. 47912 of 2014

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

dated 24.09.2019 and thereafter the petitioners have preferred RSA No.1715/2019 before this Court and the same is pending consideration. Learned counsel accordingly submitted that, there is no infirmity in the impugned orders at Annexure-A and B, and as such, sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶73

Smt. Savithramma, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 sought to justify the impugned orders.

¶74

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by both the authorities at Annexures - A and B. It is stated in the impugned order that the land bearing Sy.No.112 of Malur District was granted in favour of father of petitioner Nos.1 and 2, Bodappa to an extent of 2 acres and thereafter the land in question was sold in favour of respondent No.4, as per the registered Sale Deed dated 27.04.1963. It is also to be considered that the petitioners herein have filed O.S.No.5/2016 seeking relief of declaration of title and for permanent injunction, which came to be dismissed by the Trial Court by Judgment and decree dated 31.03.2018. It is also to

¶75

8 -

¶76

NC: 2025:KHC:18826 WP No. 47912 of 2014

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

be noted that issue No.1 in the said suit is with regard to title

¶79

of the petitioners in respect of the suit schedule properties which has been negated by the Trial Court. It is also to be noted that the petitioners herein have filed R.A.No.80/2018 which came to be dismissed by First Appellate Court by Judgment and decree dated 24.09.2019. Accordingly, taking into consideration that RSA No.1715/2019 is pending consideration before this Court, I am of the view, that no interference is called for in so far as the impugned orders passed by the respondent-authorities are concerned. However, it is open for the petitioners herein to approach the revenue authorities pursuant to the Judgment and decree that may be passed by this Court in RSA No.1715/2019, if so advised.

¶80

With the above observation the Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.

¶81

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶82

sac

¶83

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 70

Ramaswamy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramaswamy 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

Smt J C Poornima Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sri. Shanthappa Vs Government of Karnataka

Sri. Basavaraju Vs Government of Karnataka

Smt Ramakka Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Venkatesh Murthy R Vs the Secretary

Sri Jitesh B P Vs the State of Karnataka