Allowed

Sri Srinivasa Reddy B N v. P Ravikumar

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2026WP/44299/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court quashed proceedings before the Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Land/209/2017, holding the Commission lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate a civil dispute over title and possession of immovable property. The Commission's order dated 17.08.2017 restraining construction and directing status quo was also quashed. The Court clarified it expressed no opinion on the merits of the rival claims, leaving them open for adjudication before a competent civil court.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Land/209/2017 before the Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes quashed; order dated 17.08.2017 (Annexure-W) quashed; parties left to agitate rival claims before competent civil forum.

Sri Srinivasa Reddy B N Vs P Ravikumar — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:50693 WP No. 44299 of 2017

¶4

CNR: KAHC010114732017

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.44299 OF 2017 (GM-RES)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI.SRINIVASA REDDY B N

¶12

S/O SRI.NYATHAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶13

RESIDING AT

¶14

DEVARABEESANAHALLI VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BENGALURU -560 035

¶15

…PETITIONER

¶16

(BY SRI.MAYA HOLLA, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

P.RAVIKUMAR

¶19

S/O POOJAPPA

¶20

NO.228/278, DODDAKANAHALLI DINNE

¶21

GEAR COLLEGE CROSS ROAD

¶22

SARJAPURA MAIN ROAD RALMELOKAM POST BENGALURU-560 035

¶23

2. TAHSILDAR

¶24

BANGALORE EAST TALUK K.R.PURAM DIESEL SHED ROAD

¶25

BENGALURU-560 036

¶26

Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified

¶27

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:50693 WP No. 44299 of 2017

¶30

CNR: KAHC010114732017

¶31

TAHSILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK REVENUE BHAVAN BENGALURU-560 009

¶32

M.SRINIVASAN S/O MUTTHUSWAMY GOUNDAR

¶33

SAVITRAI SRINIVASAN C/O M.SRINIVASAN

¶34

BOTH RESPONDENT NOS.4 AND 5 RESIDING AT WARD NO.4 & 5 NO.48, 3RD CROSS 29TH MAIN ROAD, B.T.LAYOUT 2ND PHASE BENGALURU - 560 076

¶35

ALSO AT

¶36

K.F.GARE FOUNDATION OUTER RING ROAD SARJAPUR ROAD DODDAKANAHALLI BENGALURU -560 035

¶37

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER K.G.ROAD BENGALURU-560009

¶38

KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES & SCHEDULED TRIBES CFC BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR BENGALURU - 560001

¶39

…RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY SRI.MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R.2, 3 AND 6;

¶41

Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified

¶42

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:50693 WP No. 44299 of 2017

¶45

CNR: KAHC010114732017

¶46

SRI.K.CHANDRA MOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R.7; R.1 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;

¶47

NOTICE TO R.4 AND R.5 IS D/W V/O/D 17.09.2026)

¶48

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED TRIBES IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ETC.

¶49

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

¶50

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶51

ORAL ORDER

¶52

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo dated 17.01.2026 seeking dispensation of notice to respondent Nos.4 and 5 since no relief is sought against them.

¶53

2. The said memo is taken on record.

¶54

In view of the above said memo, notice to

¶55

respondent Nos.4 and 5 is dispensed with.

¶56

Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified

¶57

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:50693 WP No. 44299 of 2017

¶60

CNR: KAHC010114732017

¶61

The captioned writ petition is filed seeking for

¶62

the following relief;

¶63

"i. Declare that the proceedings in Land/209/2017 before the Karnataka State Commission for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes is without jurisdiction.

¶64

ii. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing the order dated 17.08.2017 (Annexure-W) passed by the Karnataka State Commission for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes), as without jurisdiction, illegal and arbitrary.

¶65

iii. Direct the respondents to pay the costs of this petition and grant such other and further reliefs as are just."

¶66

The petitioner, who claims title over the disputed

¶67

property under a registered Sale Deed dated 03.12.1970 executed for valuable consideration in favour of his father and, thereafter, claims to have derived right and interest in the property pursuant to an inter se partition within the family, is aggrieved by the proceedings initiated by respondent No.7 – Karnataka State Commission for the

¶68

Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified

¶69

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

NC: 2026:KHC:50693 WP No. 44299 of 2017

¶72

CNR: KAHC010114732017

¶73

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, on the basis of a complaint lodged seeking, inter alia , the relief of possession. On respondent No.7 issuing notice to the petitioner in Land/209/2017, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, principally contending that the Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the civil dispute between the parties. The petitioner has consequently sought a declaration that the proceedings initiated in Land/209/2017 are without jurisdiction and has further sought a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 17.08.2017, produced at Annexure-W, whereby the petitioner has been restrained from putting up any construction over the disputed property and has been directed to maintain status quo.

¶74

The principal question that arises for consideration

¶75

is as to whether respondent No.7 – Commission could have entertained the complaint and issued orders touching

¶76

Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified

¶77

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

NC: 2026:KHC:50693 WP No. 44299 of 2017

¶80

CNR: KAHC010114732017

¶81

upon possession and enjoyment of the disputed property when the controversy essentially involves adjudication of civil rights between the parties. This Court has consistently held in a series of judgments that the Commission cannot assume the jurisdiction of a civil Court and adjudicate upon disputed questions of title, possession or other civil rights in respect of immovable property. The jurisdiction conferred upon the Commission cannot be expanded so as to enable it to decide matters which fall within the exclusive domain of a competent civil Court.

¶82

It is also relevant to take note of the submission

¶83

advanced by the learned Additional Government Advocate.

¶84

An identical issue had arisen for consideration before this Court in W.P.No.15558/2017. In the said proceedings, the Commission had given an undertaking, which has been noticed by this Court in paragraph No.34 of the order, that

¶85

it would not entertain complaints or proceedings which fall outside the scope of its statutory powers and jurisdiction.

¶86

Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified

¶87

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

NC: 2026:KHC:50693 WP No. 44299 of 2017

¶90

CNR: KAHC010114732017

¶91

The said order has been placed before this Court and is taken on record. The aforesaid undertaking itself demonstrates that the Commission is conscious of the limitations governing the exercise of its jurisdiction and cannot embark upon adjudication of disputes which are essentially civil in nature.

¶92

In the present case, the complaint entertained by respondent No.7, when examined in the backdrop of the reliefs sought therein, unmistakably discloses that the controversy is essentially one relating to the right, title and possession over the disputed property. The petitioner asserts his claim through a registered Sale Deed of the year 1970 stated to have been executed in favour of his father for valuable consideration and further relies upon a subsequent inter se partition within the family. Whether such claim of title and the competing claim set up by the complainant are legally sustainable, and who is entitled to possession of the property, are matters which necessarily

¶93

Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified

¶94

¶95

HC-KAR

¶96

NC: 2026:KHC:50693 WP No. 44299 of 2017

¶97

CNR: KAHC010114732017

¶98

require adjudication by a competent civil forum on the

¶99

basis of pleadings and evidence.

¶100

The Commission, while exercising its statutory functions, cannot adjudicate upon such disputed questions of title and possession or grant reliefs which are in the nature of orders that could appropriately be sought before and granted by a competent civil Court. The mere fact that a complaint has been presented before the Commission does not confer jurisdiction upon it to decide a dispute which, in substance, is a civil dispute between rival claimants to an immovable property. The nature of the controversy and the relief sought, and not the nomenclature of the complaint, must determine the jurisdiction of the authority.

¶101

Viewed from this perspective, this Court is of the considered view that respondent No.7 could not have assumed jurisdiction over the complaint in Land/209/2017 and proceed to issue directions affecting the petitioner’s

¶102

Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified

¶103

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

NC: 2026:KHC:50693 WP No. 44299 of 2017

¶106

CNR: KAHC010114732017

¶107

asserted rights in the disputed property. The order dated 17.08.2017, particularly the direction restraining the petitioner from putting up any construction and directing the parties to maintain status quo , is an order which directly operates upon the civil rights and possession of the parties in respect of the property. Such an adjudicatory exercise is beyond the jurisdiction vested in the Commission.

¶108

It is necessary to clarify that this Court, while examining the jurisdictional issue, is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims to title or possession over the disputed property. The petitioner’s claim based on the registered Sale Deed dated 03.12.1970, as well as the competing claim of the complainant, are matters which, if required, may be adjudicated by the competent civil forum in accordance with law. What falls for consideration in the present proceedings is only the competence of respondent No.7 to

¶109

Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified

¶110

10 -

¶111

HC-KAR

¶112

NC: 2026:KHC:50693 WP No. 44299 of 2017

¶113

CNR: KAHC010114732017

¶114

entertain and adjudicate upon such a dispute, and on that

¶115

limited issue, the answer has to be in the negative.

¶116

Once it is found that the complaint itself was beyond the jurisdiction of respondent No.7, continuation of the proceedings before the Commission would serve no lawful purpose. The petitioner cannot be compelled to undergo a prolonged proceeding before an authority which lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the very nature of dispute brought before it. Exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is, therefore, warranted to prevent continuation of proceedings which are without jurisdiction and to secure the ends of justice.

¶117

For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the proceedings initiated by respondent No.7 in Land/209/2017 are without jurisdiction and cannot be permitted to continue. Consequently, the

¶118

Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified

¶119

11 -

¶120

HC-KAR

¶121

NC: 2026:KHC:50693 WP No. 44299 of 2017

¶122

CNR: KAHC010114732017

¶123

order dated 17.08.2017 passed by respondent No.7 at

¶124

Annexure-W is also liable to be quashed.

¶125

Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the

¶126

following:

¶127

ORDER

¶128

(i) The writ petition is allowed .

¶129

(ii) The proceedings in Land/209/2017 pending before the Karnataka State Commission for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes are hereby quashed.

¶130

(iii) Consequently, the order dated 17.08.2017 passed by the Karnataka State Commission for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, produced at Annexure-W, is hereby quashed.

¶131

(iv) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the rival claims of the parties relating to title, possession or other civil rights in respect of the disputed property. All such rights and

¶132

Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified

¶133

12 -

¶134

HC-KAR

¶135

NC: 2026:KHC:50693 WP No. 44299 of 2017

¶136

CNR: KAHC010114732017

¶137

contentions are left open to be agitated before the competent forum in accordance with law.

¶138

Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified

¶139

(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)

¶140

JUDGE

¶141

NBM

¶142

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Sri Srinivasa Reddy B N v. P Ravikumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Srinivasa Reddy B N v. P Ravikumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases