Karnataka High Court
Gayathri Sundara Rao vs State Of Karnataka on 18 July, 2012
Author: K.L.Manjunath
Bench: K.L.Manjunath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO
WRIT APPEAL No.2473/2007 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN :
1 GAYATHRI SUNDARA RAO
W/O LATE.B.SUNDAR RAO
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
NO.158,17TH CROSS,
8TH MAIN ROAD,
MALLESWARAM,
BANGALORE-05.
2 PREMALATA
W/O K.RAGHUNANDAN,
D/O. LATE B. SUNDAR RAO,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
NO.158,17TH CROSS,
8TH MAIN ROAD,
MALLESWARAM,
BANGALORE-05. ... APPELLANTS.
( By Sri. B S MANJUNATH, ADV. )
2
AND:
1 STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING,
BANGALORE-01.
REP.BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY.
2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE.
3 SPECIAL THASILDHAR
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
HEGGADADEVANAPURA VILLAGE,
BANGALORE. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI M. KESHAVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1-3 )
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.18911/2007 DATED 5/12/2007.
THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, K.L.
MANJUNATH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18911/2007 dated 5.12.2007, is called in 3 question in this appeal.
2. The first appellant being the widow of one Sundar Rao and daughter-in-law of one Suryanarayana Rao and the second appellant, is the daughter of Suryanarayana Rao, filed the writ petition to quash the order passed by the Revenue authorities in changing the revenue entries to the name of the Government, in respect of 1 acre 6 guntas of land in Sy.No.44/2B of Heggadevanapura village in Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, on the ground that Suryanarayana Rao, the father-in-law of the first appellant and the father of the second appellant, was the absolute owner of the aforesaid property. It was purchased by him in the year 1967 under a registered sale deed. After the death of Suryanarayanarao all of a sudden, without there being any action taken to take possession under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976, revenue entries have been changed. Therefore, the writ petition was filed.
3. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on 4 the ground that the appellants have to work out their remedies in the civil court. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed.
4. We have heard the counsel for the parties. The Government Advocate has produced the records. On a perusal of the records, it is clear that Suryanarayana Rao, during his lifetime, had given a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976. According to the records, the schedule property is not an agricultural land, but is a converted land. The records further disclose that Suryanarayana Rao has also received the compensation awarded under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. The record further discloses that the Government has taken possession of the land resumed under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. When such being the case, the appellants, without disclosing the proceedings which had taken under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, had filed the writ petition stating that the appellants are in possession of the property and have not been dispossessed, in accordance with law. Since the records 5 produced by the Government Advocate discloses that the land has been resumed by the Government under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, the appellants are not entitled for any relief and by suppressing the facts, the writ petition had been filed.
Therefore, this appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE KS