Mr Muni Raja Vs the State of Karnataka

(BY SMT. PRAMILA NESARGI., SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR D., ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NOS.1, 2 & 4 SRI. PRABHUGOUD B. TUMBIGI A/W SRI. BALASUBRAMANYA B.N., SRI.M.T.NANAIAH., ADVOCATES FOR PETITIONER NO.3)

¶20

AND

¶21

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRL. REVENUE SECRETARY, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶22

2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009.

¶23

3 . THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009.

¶24

4 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION, KHANDAYA BHAVANA, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009.

¶25

5 . THE TAHSILDAR (ADDL.) NORTH TALUK MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,

¶26

-3-

¶27

YELAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE-560 064.

¶28

6 . SRI. C. SUBBANNA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O. LATE SRI. CHIKKA MUNIYAPPA, R/AT KATTIGENAHALLI JALA (2) HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-560 064.

¶29

7 . SRI. C. NARAYANA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O. LATE SRI. CHIKKA MUNIYAPPA, R/AT KATTIGENAHALLI JALA (2) HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-560 064.

¶30

8 . SRI. BALARAM U. NICHANI AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O. UDHAWDAS H. NICHANI,

¶31

9 . SRI. ANAND U. NICHANI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O. SRI. BALARAM U NICHANI, BOTH ARE R/AT SAI KRUPA, NO.46, "C" FAIR FIELD LAYOUT, RACE COURT ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶32

10 . SRI. P. SHYAMA RAJU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O. LATE SRI. P. NARASA RAJU, R/AT NO.343, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, SADASHIVA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 080.

¶33

11 . BHASKAR RAJU S/O. NARASA RAJU, R/AT NO.37, 4^TH CROSS, AGA ABBAS ALI ROAD,

¶34

-4-

¶35

BANGALORE-560 008.

¶36

12 . SRI. S. BHOJA RAJU AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O. RAMALINGA RAJU, R/AT NO.335/1, 14^TH CROSS, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 080.

¶37

…RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI. K.P.YOGANNA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5 SRI. P.M.NARAYANASWAMY., ADVOCATE FOR R7 SRI. UMESH B.N., ADVOCATE FOR R9 SRI. V.KRISHNA MURTHY., ADVOCATE FOR R10 TO R12 R8 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶39

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING DIRECT THE 5TH RESPONDENT - TAHSILDAR TO EFFECT THE MUTATION OF THE LAND IN QUESTION IN THE NAMES OF PETITIONERS AS OWNERS IN POSSESSION AND CONTINUATION OF REVENUE RECORDS WHICH IS DISCONTINUED FROM THE YEAR 1986-87 TO 1999-01 (ANNEXURE-C-5 TO C-7) RESPECTIVELY AND TO DIRECT THE 5TH RESPONDENT - TAHSILDAR TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DTD.12.06.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-P IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC.

¶40

IN WP 30648 OF 2018 BETWEEN

¶41

1 . MR MUNI RAJA AGE 47 YEARS

¶42

2 . MR. SHIVA KUMAR AGE 43 YEARS SL.NO. 1 & 2 ARE SONS OF LATE. KADARAPPA/GRANTEE, ALL ARE R/AT KATIKANAHALLI, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE 560064, REP BY THEIR REGD GPA HOLDER

-5-

MR. V VENKATATESULU

...PETITIONERS

(BY SMT. PRAMILA NESARGI., SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR D., ADVOCATE)

¶47

AND

¶48

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL REVENUE SECRETARY, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE 560001

¶49

2 . THE TAHSILDAR (ADDL) NORTH TALUK MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA YELAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE 560064.

¶50

…RESPONDENTS

¶51

(BY SRI. K.P.YOGANNA, AGA)

¶52

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO EFFECT THE MUTATION AND ENTER THE NAMES OF PETITIOENRS IN REVENUE RECORDS AS OWNERS IN POSSESSION OF THE LAND IN QUESTION IN PURSUANT TO THE GRAND MADE IN CASE NO. LND. SR. (1) 1044/79-80 (ANNEXURES B, B-1 TO B-6) AND ETC.

¶53

IN WP 35678 OF 2018

¶54

BETWEEN

¶55

1 . SRI NARASIMAIAH AGE 48 YEARS S/O LATE LAKSHAMAIH

¶56

2 . SRI KRISHANAPPA AGE 50 YEARS S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH

¶57

-6-

¶58

3 . SRI MUNI RAJU AGE 46 YEARS S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH

¶59

4 . SMT BOOLAKSHMI AGE 30 YEARS D/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH

¶60

5 . SMT BHARATHAMMA AGE 36 YEARS D/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH SL.NOS.1 TO 5 ARE GRAND SONS & GRAND DAUGHTERS OF LATE GANGAPPA/GRANTEE ALL ARE R/AT : KATIKANAHALLI, JALA (2) YELAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE-560 064 REP BY THEIR REGD.G.P.A HOLDER MR V. VENKAKATESULU ...PETITIONERS

¶61

(BY SMT. PRAMILA NESARGI., SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR D., ADVOCATE) AND 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL REVENUE SECRETARY M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶62

2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT K G ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009.

¶63

3 . THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT

¶64

-7-

¶65

K G ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009.

¶66

4 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION, KHADAYA BHAVAN, K G ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009.

¶67

5 . THE TAHSILDAR (ADDL.) NORTH TALUK MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, YELAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE-560 064

¶68

6 . SRI MUNIYAPPA AGE 65 YEARS S/O LATE SRI CHIKKA GULLAPPA R/AT KATTIGENAHALLI, JALA (2) HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-560 064

¶69

7 . SRI NARAYANAPPA AGE 63 YEARS S/O LATE SRI CHIKKA GULLAPPA R/AT KATTIGENAHALLI, JALA (2) HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-560 064.

¶70

8 . SRI ANAND U NICHANI AGE 50 YEARS S/O SRI BALARAM U NICHANI R/AT SAI KRUPA, NO.46,"C"FAIR FIELD LAYOUT RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶71

9 . SRI P V GIRI AGE 45 YEARS S/O LATE SRI P VARADA RAJU # 44/4,DISTRICT COMPOUND ROAD, 9^TH BLOCK, JAYA NAGAR

¶72

-8-

¶73

BANGALORE-560 069

¶74

10 . SRI K SYAMA RAJU S/O SRI RAMA RAJU NO.150/B, 10^TH MAIN, R.M.V. EXTENSION ROAD, BANGALORE-560 080.

¶75

11 . SRI A S CHINNSWAMY RAJU AGE 75 YEARS

¶76

294,"UPPER PALACE ORCHADS" SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 080

¶77

…RESPONDENTS

¶78

(BY SRI. K.P.YOGANNA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5

¶79

SRI. V.KRISHNA MURTHY., ADVOCATE FOR R9 & R10 SRI.V.VISHWANATH SHETTY., ADVOCATE FOR R8 R7 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶80

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 5TH RESPONDENT - TAHSILDAR TO EFFECT THE MUTATION OF THE LAND IN QUESTION IN THE NAMES OF PETITIONERS AS OWNERS IN POSSESSION AND CONTINUATION OF REVENUE RECORDS WHICH IS DISCONTINUED FROM THE YEAR 1986-87 TO 1999-01 (ANNEXURES C-5 TO C-7) RESPECTIVELY AND TO DIRECT THE 5TH RESPONDENT - TAHSILDAR TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 12.06.2018 (ANNEXURE-L) IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC.

¶81

THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 04.02.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶82

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶83

-9-

¶84

CAV COMMON ORDER

¶85

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS)

¶86

Writ Petition No.33998/2018 is filed by

¶87

Smt.Nanjamma and others, being aggrieved of the impugned order at Annexure-K, dated 21.09.2011 passed by the respondent-Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, in proceedings bearing No.RRT(2)NA/CR No.705/2008-09 and the consequent communication dated 10.04.2018 made by the Special Deputy Commissioner to the Tahsildar, Bangalore North (Additional) Taluk, Bangalore. The other writ petitions are filed by Sri.Narasimhaiah and others seeking to quash similar order dated 21.09.2011 passed by the respondentSpecial Deputy Commissioner, in proceedings bearing No.RRT(2)NA/CR No.64/2009-10, while also seeking directions to the respondent-Tahsildar to effect mutation entries in the revenue records in the name of the petitioners. The contesting respondents in all these writ

¶88

-10-

¶89

petitions being common, the writ petitions were clubbed, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶90

The two orders impugned, which are passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District are in favour of the contesting respondents, in respect of two items property viz., Sy.No.192/P1, measuring 2 Acres 20 Guntas and Sy.No.192/P2, measuring 2 Acres and 20 Guntas, both situated at Kattigenahalli village, Bangalore North (Additional) Taluk, Bangalore Urban District. Proceedings were initiated by the revenue authorities invoking Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, (for short, ‘the Act, 1964’) on the ground that the revenue entries made earlier in the name of the original grantee-Sri. Subbanna S/o Chikkamuniyappa and Sri.Narayanaswamy S/o Chikkamuniyappa were bogus, since no grants were made in their favour and that all subsequent transactions cannot be recognized in law, since the claim of the original

¶91

-11-

¶92

grantees were bogus. However, by virtue of the impugned orders passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner on 21.09.2011, the Special Deputy Commissioner found that grant records were available and therefore, all revenue entries were found genuine. Accordingly, directions were issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner to the Tahsildar to restore the names of the contesting respondents/subsequent purchasers in the revenue records.

¶93

The petitioners herein claimed to be the legal heirs of late Sri.Palanahalli M. Mutthappa and late Sri.A.K.Gangappa, who claimed that the lands in question

¶94

were granted in their favour. The grievance of the petitioners, therefore, is that the revenue entries made in favour of the contesting respondents are illegal and therefore, the revenue entries should be directed to be removed while also directing the Tahsildar to enter the name of the late Sri.Palanahalli M. Mutthappa and late Sri.A.K.Gangappa in the revenue records and thereafter,

¶95

-12-

¶96

enter the name of the petitioners as the legal heirs of the said original grantees.

¶97

This Court heard learned Senior Counsel

¶98

Smt.Pramila Nesargi, for the petitioners, learned Counsel Sri.V.Krishnamurthy, for the contesting respondents along with learned Counsel Sri.V.Vishwanathshetty, and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.K.P.Yoganna, for the respondent-State and revenue authorities and perused the petition papers.

¶99

Having regard to the facts narrated hereinabove,

¶100

this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the impugned orders. The orders impugned have been passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, invoking Section 136(3) of the Act, 1964. Proceedings were initiated under Section 136(3) on the ground that the lands in question were never granted to Sri.Subbanna or Sri.Narayanaswamy and therefore, all revenue entries made earlier, either in the name of the said two original grantees or in the name of the

¶101

-13-

¶102

subsequent purchasers were bogus. The contesting respondents have succeeded before the Special Deputy Commissioner, while convincing the Special Deputy Commissioner that the grants were indeed made in favour of Sri.Subbanna and Sri.Narayanaswamy. On the other hand, if the petitioners were aggrieved of the revenue entries made earlier in the name of Sri.Subbanna and Sri.Narayanaswamy, or if the predecessors of the petitioners were aggrieved of the same, they should have questioned the revenue entries in a manner known to law. Provision is made in Section 136(2) to question such revenue entries made by the Tahsildar, before the Assistant Commissioner. The petitioners nor their predecessors never invoked the said provision to raise a challenge to the revenue entries made earlier in the name of Sri.Subbanna and Sri.Narayanaswamy. Even if they have made such an attempt, there is no material placed before this Court to show that orders have been passed by the competent authority to remove the names of the

¶103

-14-

¶104

contesting respondents or their predecessors in title and to enter the name of the petitioners in the revenue records. This Court is therefore of the considered opinion that the petitioners have no locus standi to question the impugned orders passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner. The petitioners have to independently raise a claim with respect to their title over the property in question. At the same time, having regard to the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Jayamma and

¶105

Others Vs. State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department and Others, reported in ILR 2020 KAR. 1449 , such disputed questions of title cannot be decided by the revenue authorities. The petitioners will have to approach a competent civil court to seek declaration of title.

¶106