Gopal M Vs the District Commissioner

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12/07/2024 PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.12317/2024 BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION CONSEQUENTLY b)ALLOW THE ABOVE WRIT APPEAL AND c)GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF OR RELIEF/s BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL ON THE GROUNDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶26

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶30

The present intra Court appeal has been filed

¶31

impugning the judgment and order dated 12.07.2024 passed in W.P.No.12317/2024.

¶32

The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the writ Court for the sake of convenience.

¶33

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:6924-DB WA No. 1181 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

The petitioner has challenged the order dated

¶36

15.12.2023 passed in RP.No.457/2022-23 by respondent No.1-the District Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru and also the common order dated 04.03.2022 passed in RA(BE)201/2016-17 C/w RA(BE)407/2016-17 by respondent No.2-the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division, Bengaluru in the aforesaid writ petition. The petitioner has further sought for a writ of mandamus directing the Revenue Authorities to change the revenue entries in his favour with respect to the property bearing Sy.No.22 (Sy.No.22/4) measuring 2 acres situated at Hagaduru Village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk.

¶37

The land in question was granted in favour of one Muniyappa, who happened to be the grandfather of the petitioner. The petitioner had filed the suit in O.S.No.904/2017 in the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District for injunction. The petitioner is

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:6924-DB WA No. 1181 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

also facing the proceedings before the Land Grabbing

¶42

Court in Case LGC(S)No.202/2017.

¶43

The learned Single Judge, after observing that the original suit has already been filed in which the petitioner did not get any relief, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶44

It may be noted that the petitioner neither did mention the filing of O.S.No.904/2017 nor the proceedings pending before the Land Grabbing Court in the writ petition.

¶45

If the petitioner has any right and title over the land in question, he must establish his right in a proper and appropriate civil proceedings. However, the public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be available to the petitioner for claiming the right, title and interest over the land in question

¶46

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:6924-DB WA No. 1181 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

particularly, when he is facing the proceedings under the Karnataka Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2011.

¶49

The revenue entries in respect of the aforesaid land have been changed at the behest of the respondent No.4M.Venugopal, who claims to be the son of Muniyappa. The said Muniyappa is said to have died in the year 1972. The application for change of the revenue entries in the name of the respondent No.4-M.Venugopal was made in the year 2024. The parties have not got their right finally decided by a competent Civil Court and as such without there being any such adjudication, the revenue entries have been effected on the application of the respondent No.4.

¶50

We are, therefore, of the view that such a belated application by the respondent No.4 without crystallizing the rights of the parties over the land in question by the competent court in appropriate civil proceedings ought not to have been entertained and change in revenue entries should not have been made. Thus, we set aside the orders

¶51

6 -

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:6924-DB WA No. 1181 of 2024

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

passed by the District Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner and restore the entries as existed prior to

¶55

the impugned order passed by the two Authorities.

¶56

Let the parties get their rights decided over the land in question and thereafter, the appropriate entries will be made depending on the adjudication of the dispute between the parties by a competent Civil Court.

¶57

With the aforesaid observations, the writ appeal stands disposed of.

¶58

In view of the disposal of the writ appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly they stand disposed of.

¶59

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶60

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶61

DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Gopal M v. the District Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal M v. the District Commissioner

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

Sri B S Suresh, Vs the Chief Commissioner

Smt M G Vanajakshi Vs Mrs Vasanthi

Ompl Officers Association Vs Union of India