Karnataka High Court
Y R Janardhana Rao vs State Of Karnataka on 3 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:4955
WP No. 45733 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 45733 OF 2011 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. Y.R. JANARDHANA RAO
S/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/A NO.167, 18TH MAIN ROAD
36TH CROSS, 4TH 'T' BLOCK
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-57
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G.V. SUDHAKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPTD BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-01.
Digitally signed by
AL BHAGYA 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
Location: HIGH BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
COURT OF PODIUM BLOCK, T.V. TOWER
KARNATKA
BANGALORE-01.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DODDABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
PODIUM BLOCK, T.V. TOWER
BANGALORE-01.
4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:4955
WP No. 45733 of 2011
PODIUM BLOCK, T.V. TOWER
BANGALORE-1.
5. THE TAHASILDAR
DEVANAHALI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
6. SMT PILLA AKKAYYAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRs
6(A) SRI. NARASIMHAIAH
S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/AT NO. 78/4
NEAR SHREE SHAKTHI
MUTHYALAMMA DEVI TEMPLE
KARIYANAPALYA
ST. THOMAS TOWN POST
BANGALORE-560 084.
6(B) SMT. NARASAMMA
D/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT NO.65, 2ND MAIN ROAD
10TH CROSS, NEAR COMMUNITY HALL
DIDDANEKKUNDI
BENGALURU-560 037.
6(C) SMT. SAROJA
D/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT NO.39, HUSKUR MADURA
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
VIRGONAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560 049.
7. VIMANAGARA LAYOUT PLOT OWNERS
WELFARE ASSOCIATION
NO.500-D, 17TH F 4TH MAIN
6TH BLOCK
KORAMANGALA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:4955
WP No. 45733 of 2011
BANGALORE-560 095
REP. BY ITS TREASURER
MR. AVINASH SADAKE.
[CAUSE TITLE AMENDED V/O/D 23.01.2025]
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5;
SRI. G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R6(A-C);
SMT. P.C. VINITHA, ADVOCATE FOR R7)
THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 26.03.2011 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/
THE RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN IN REVISION PETITITON
NO.1/2009-10 AT ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed assailing the order passed by the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner dated 26.03.2011 evidenced at Annexure-H.
2. The facts leading to the case are as under:
The petitioner is concerned with Sy.No.95, old Sy.No.60 measuring 5 acres 10 guntas. Petitioner is tracing title through one Muniyamma and Others under registered sale deed dated 19.09.1980. Petitioner -4- NC: 2025:KHC:4955 WP No. 45733 of 2011 contends that erstwhile owner acquired property in a public auction conducted by revenue authorities in respect of gomala lands in Sy.Nos.57, 58 and 60, totally measuring 100 acres. Petitioner claims that since grantee violated the conditions for having failed to cultivate the granted land, the authorities cancelled the grant vide order dated 22.12.1947 and the land was subjected to auction. Petitioner therefore claims that erstwhile owner Muniga participated in auction and purchased Sy.No.60 and this land was assigned a new Sy.No.95 while effecting phodi proceedings.
Respondent No.6 submitted a petition on 16.12.2007 before the respondent No.5 requesting to conduct survey in respect of land bearing Sy.No.60/p6. The jurisdictional Tahsildar however issued an endorsement indicating that subject land is now assigned a new Sy.No.95 and therefore, he lacks authority to cancel the durasthi proceedings. This endorsement was assailed before the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner. The respondent -5- NC: 2025:KHC:4955 WP No. 45733 of 2011 No.2/Deputy Commissioner vide order impugned in the captioned petition evidenced at Annexure-H has come to conclusion that Sy.No.60 which is granted to the ancestor of respondent No.6 forms part and parcel of Sy.No.95 and therefore, the 1980 phodi and durasthi conducted by the authorities affirmed by the JDLR is set aside and the matter is remitted for fresh enquiry. This order is under challenge by the petitioner.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6(a) to 6(c) and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7 and learned AGA appearing for the State. The parties in support of their claim have placed on record exhaustive documents to substantiate their respective claims.
4. The petitioner asserts that their vendor, who successfully participated in a public auction, purchased 5 acres and 20 guntas in Sy.No.60. Following the auction, -6- NC: 2025:KHC:4955 WP No. 45733 of 2011 the authorities conducted phodi and durasthi, and the portion acquired by Muniga was carved out and reassigned a new survey number, Sy.No.95, measuring 5 acres and 10 guntas. In contrast, private respondent No.6 traces her right and title through her father, Munimaddurappa, concerning Sy.No.60/6. The original respondent No.6 claims that her father was granted 2 acres and 20 guntas in Sy.No.60/6, with a saguvali chit issued in his favour on 04.07.1963, as evidenced by Annexure-B1 to the statement of objections.
5. Respondents contend that Munimaddurappa sold the granted land in Sy.No.60/6 to one Ramakrishnappa through a registered sale deed dated 18.12.1965, who subsequently transferred it to Venkojappa on 19.09.1968. However, respondent No.6, being the daughter of the original grantee Munimaddurappa, later invoked the provisions of the PTCL Act by filing a petition for restoration, arguing that the original alienation was in direct contravention of the Act. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC:4955 WP No. 45733 of 2011 Consequently, the petition filed under Sections 4 and 5 was allowed, leading to the restoration of the alienated land and its possession being handed over to respondent No.6. Following these restoration proceedings, an anomaly arose in the RTC records as the property was reassigned a fresh survey number, Sy.No.60/p5. This resulted in an identification issue, prompting respondent No.6 to likely move an application before the Tahsildar seeking a survey of Sy.No.60/6, which had been restored to her possession. However, the Tahsildar declined to entertain the application on the ground that Sy.No.60 had already undergone phodi and durasthi, thereby falling outside his jurisdiction for fresh phodi proceedings. This endorsement was subsequently challenged by respondent No.6 before respondent No.2, the Deputy Commissioner. In reviewing the matter, the Deputy Commissioner entertained the revision and effectively set aside the phodi conducted in 1980, despite the fact that it had been affirmed by the Joint Director of Land Records (JDLR), as evidenced by Annexure-D. -8- NC: 2025:KHC:4955 WP No. 45733 of 2011
6. On a deeper examination of the documents now placed before this Court by the petitioner, along with the counter-documents furnished by respondent Nos.6(a) to 6(c), the issue at hand necessitates a twofold consideration. Firstly, this Court must scrutinize whether respondent No.2, the Deputy Commissioner, while reviewing the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar who declined to conduct phodi, had the authority to disregard and override the order passed by the Joint Director of Land Records (JDLR), who, on the surveyor side, holds a position superior to that of the Deputy Commissioner. Secondly, this Court must determine whether the Deputy Commissioner, acting as the revenue head of a division under Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, possessed the authority to set aside the phodi conducted in 1980 and subsequently confirmed by the JDLR, as evidenced by Annexure-D. The answer to both these questions is emphatically in the negative. -9-
NC: 2025:KHC:4955 WP No. 45733 of 2011
7. The Deputy Commissioner, acting within his jurisdiction as a revenue authority, prima facie lacked the power to examine the legality or validity of the phodi and durasthi conducted in 1980, which had been duly affirmed by the JDLR. This is because, under the framework of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, there exists a clear demarcation of powers between revenue officials and survey officials, as set out in Section 49 of the Act. Sub- sections (a) to (d) of Section 49 vest revenue officials with powers concerning revenue administration, while sub- sections (e) to (h) confer specific technical authority upon survey officials. Since phodi and durasthi are matters of technical survey and land measurement, they fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the survey officials. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner, being a revenue authority, lacked the competence to intervene in or invalidate a phodi that had been duly conducted and confirmed by the JDLR.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4955 WP No. 45733 of 2011
8. Upon a thorough examination of the additional documents submitted to this Court, it is evident that the properties held by the petitioner and respondent No.6 pertain to distinct and separate survey numbers. The document placed at page 59 of the memo dated 31.01.2024 clearly demonstrates that Sy.No.95 and Sy.No.140 are two different and distinct parcels of land, located separately and not adjoining to one another. This negates any direct territorial overlap between the claims of the petitioner and respondent Nos.6(a) to 6(c).
9. Furthermore, the learned counsel representing respondent Nos.6(a) to 6(c) has brought to this Court's notice that respondent No.6(a) has instituted a civil suit, O.S.No.718/2022, seeking a declaration and an injunction. Upon an inquiry by this Court regarding the property involved in the said suit, the learned counsel has fairly conceded that the subject matter of O.S.No.718/2022 pertains to Sy.No.60/6.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4955 WP No. 45733 of 2011
10. Given the pendency of a comprehensive civil suit concerning the matter, this Court finds it appropriate to relegate the parties to work out their respective claims in O.S.No.718/2022. The public documents presented in these proceedings may be relied upon by both parties to substantiate their claims before the civil court. Furthermore, since this Court has already concluded that the Deputy Commissioner lacked the jurisdiction to set aside the phodi and durasthi conducted in 1980, respondent Nos.6(a) to 6(c) must independently establish their title by producing relevant title documents in support of their claim. The burden of proof squarely rests upon respondent Nos.6(a) to 6(c) to demonstrate their legal entitlement, particularly as there is no rival claim raised over Sy.No.60/6.
11. Despite an extensive review of the documents submitted by both parties, this Court is unable to ascertain the precise nature of the dispute between the petitioner and respondent Nos.6(a) to 6(c). The core issue whether
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4955 WP No. 45733 of 2011 the insistence of respondent Nos.6(a) to 6(c) on surveying Sy.No.60/6 is an indirect assertion of rights over Sy.No.95 must be comprehensively examined by the civil court through appropriate evidence from both sides. While both parties appear to be laying claims over distinct properties, there exists a remote but perceptible nexus between their respective claims, potentially leading to an overlap in property boundaries. The sketch at page 59 provides insight into the location of Sy.No.95 and Sy.No.140, further reinforcing the need for an exhaustive fact-finding exercise by the civil court.
12. This Court, being acutely conscious of the limited scope of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, deems it appropriate to direct the parties to substantiate their claims in the pending suit. Simultaneously, it is imperative to declare that the impugned order passed by respondent No.2, the Deputy Commissioner, suffers from a lack of jurisdiction and legal authority. In light of the clear distinction of
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4955 WP No. 45733 of 2011 powers set forth in Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the Deputy Commissioner's interference in the phodi and durasthi confirmed by the JDLR was wholly unsustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
13. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is allowed;
(ii) The impugned order dated 26.03.2011 passed by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-H is hereby quashed and set aside;
(iii) Parties to seek redressal of their respective claims and right in the pending suit bearing O.S.No.718/2022;
(iv) All contentions are left open;
(v) If respondent No.7 choses to contest, liberty is reserved.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3