State of Karnataka Vs Sri. Muninarasappa

REP. BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SRI. M. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O LATE MADAPPA, R/O NO. 7, 1^ST MAIN, KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 060.

¶23

SRI. NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O LATE CHANNAPPA, R/O ANCHIPURA VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 109.

¶24

SMT. MUNINARASAMMA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, W/O M. NARAYANAPPA,, R/O BASAVANNA TEMPLE ROAD, DODDABELE VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 060.

¶25

SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, W/O LAKKAPPA. R/O BASAVANNA TEMPLE ROAD, DODDABELE VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU -560 060.

¶26

SRI. T.J. ABRAHAM, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O 2326, 3^RD CROSS, 16^TH B MAIN, HAL 2^ND BLOCK, INDIRANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 038.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. KRISHNAMURTHY, SR. ADVOATE FOR SRI. BHUVAN K.P., ADVOCATE)

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:34363-DB WA No. 1570 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:21.09.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THE HON'BLE COURT IN WP No.49738/2016 (KLR-RES) IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶31

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

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶33

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶34

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

¶35

The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment dated 21.09.2023 passed in W.P.No.49738/2016 by the respondents, wherein they have challenged the order dated 03.08.2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South SubDivision, Bengaluru, in case No.LND.RA(S)07/2016-17 in respect of the land in Sy.No.7/5, situated at Doddabele Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The Assistant Commissioner has directed the Tahsildar,

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:34363-DB WA No. 1570 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Bengaluru South Taluk, to initiate proceedings under Section 67(2) of the Land Revenue Act, 1964, to claim the title of the Government land and take steps to correct the revenue records in the name of the Government.

¶39

The respondents have got the decree by the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.715/1996 c/w O.S.No.716/1996, after the matter was remanded by this Court in RSA.No.18/2010 and 21/2010. Initially, the respondents' civil suit got dismissed, first appeal got dismissed, however, in regular second appeals, the suit was remanded back with liberty to the parties to adduce further evidence. It appears the respondents have produced some documentary evidence on the basis of which judgment and decree dated 01.04.2016 came to be passed.

¶40

3. Considering the fact that there is already

¶41

judgment and decree in favour of the respondents by the competent Court, the learned Single Judge vide impugned

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:34363-DB WA No. 1570 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

judgment and order has set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and has allowed the writ petition, inasmuch as the judgment and decree passed by the competent Civil Court would be binding on the revenue authorities. The revenue authority cannot take a different view than the one taken by the competent Civil Court.

¶46

Mr.B.Ravindranath, learned Additional

¶47

Government Advocate appearing for the appellant-State has submitted that judgment and decree is based on forged and fraudulent documents/evidence adduced by the respondents/plaintiffs. We are not commenting or giving any opinion regarding the fraud, however, this can be a ground available to the State, if the State files appeal against the judgment and decree dated 01.04.2016 passed by the competent Court in O.S.No.715/1996 and O.S.No.716/1996.

¶48

As of today there exists judgment and decree passed by the competent Court in favour of respondents.

¶49

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:34363-DB WA No. 1570 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

The learned Single Judge has therefore rightly taken a view that the revenue authorities are not entitled to take contrary view than taken by the competent Court in respect of right, title and interest over the land of the respondents.

¶52

Mr.Ravindranath, learned Additional

¶53

Government Advocate submits that the State is taking steps to challenge the judgment and decree dated 01.04.2016, by filing the first appeal before the competent Court. If the State has the remedy against the judgment and decree, they may take the recourse to such remedy, however, we refrain from making any observation either on fraud or limitation. We therefore, dispose of this appeal with liberty to the State to file appeal, if they are so advised, which shall be decided by the competent Court strictly in accordance with law.

¶54

From the above said facts, we condone the delay of 697 days in filing this appeal.

¶55

7 -

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:34363-DB WA No. 1570 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

So far as filing of impleading application in

¶59

I.A.2/2026 is concerned, in view of disposal of the appeal,

¶60

the application I.A.No.2/2026 does not survive for consideration. We have been informed that they have filed R.A.No.41/2025 and R.A.No.42/2025 against the judgment and decree dated 01.04.2016 passed by the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.715/1996 and O.S.No.716/1996, they are at liberty to take up the pleadings, grounds of objections filed by them in their appeal. However, application I.A.No.2/2026 does not survive for consideration and therefore, the same is rejected.

¶61

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶62

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶63

RR

¶64

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2 ct-vn

State of Karnataka v. Sri. Muninarasappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Karnataka v. Sri. Muninarasappa

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

M/S National Technological Institutions (Nti) House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd., Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Manjunath Dasappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mohammed Mukthar Ahmed Vs the State of Karnataka

The Managing Director Vs Tukaram

Shri L.Venkataeshbabu Vs Smt. L. Shanthi

Ananda. R. Vs Padma Priya