Karnataka High Court
Sri. N. Krishnappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 November, 2023
Author: B M Shyam Prasad
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:42020
WP No. 12983 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 12983 OF 2022 (ULC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. N. KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE C NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
R/AT YERRANNAPALYA VILLAGE
DOORVANINAGAR POST
BENGALURU -560 016
SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NANJA REDDY P N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
Digitally
signed by REVENUE DEPARTMENT
ANAND N
Location:
M S BUILDING
HIGH BENGALURU -560 001
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
(SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
URBAN LAND CEILING)
K G ROAD
BENGALURU -560 009
3. THE TAHSILDAR
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:42020
WP No. 12983 of 2022
K R PURAM
BENGALURU -560 036
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BHOJEGOUDA T. KOLLER, AGA)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTIFICATION DTD.13.2.1990 (GAZETTE NOTIFICATION
DTD.5.4.1990) BEARING NO.ULC(10)391/85-86
ANNEXURE-E AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY
AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE URBAN
LAND(CEILING AND REGULATIONS) ACT 1976 AND THE
URBAN LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) REPEAL ACT
1999 AND THE RULES MADE THEREUNDER; DIRECT
THE RESPONDENTS TO DELETE THE LAND BEARING
SY NO.96/1 MEASURING 5766.74 SQUARE METERS OF
KOWDENAHALLI VILLAGE, K.R.PURAM HOBLI,
BENGLAURU EAST TALUK FROM THE URBAN LAND
CEILING AND DECLARE THAT THE PROCEEDINGS BY
THE RESPONDENTS UNDER THE URBAN LAND
(CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT 1976 AND THE
URBAN LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) REPEAL ACT
1999 AND DIRECT THE R-3 TRANSFER AND RESTORE
THE REVENUE ENTRIES IN FAVOUR OF THE
PETITIONER IN THE RTC AND PLAHANI AND GRANT ALL
THE CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS CONSEQUENT UPON
QUASHING THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-E.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:42020
WP No. 12983 of 2022
ORDER
The petitioner has impugned the Notification dated 13.02.1990 [which is gazetted on 05.04.1990] [Annexure-E] under the provisions of Section 10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 [for short, 'the ULC Act'] insofar as the land in Sy.No.96/1 of Kowdenahalli Village, K. R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk [the subject property]. The petitioner has also sought for directions to the concerned respondents to delete the reference to this Notification in the RTC for the subject property and restore the revenue records in his favour. It remains undisputed that the petitioner's father, Sri. C. Nagappa, has purchased the subject property under the sale deed dated 02.09.1979.
2. Sri. Nanja Reddy B.N., the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that though the proceedings under Section 10 of the ULC Act is commenced much after the date of 02.09.1979 but -4- NC: 2023:KHC:42020 WP No. 12983 of 2022 the petitioner, who by then had purchased the subject property, is not extended the advantage of prior proceedings either under Section 8 or 9 of the ULC Act, and notwithstanding this fact being placed before the second respondent in the proceedings for the Notification under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act, the impugned Notification is issued.
3. Sri. Nanja Reddy B.N also submits that on 09.02.1988, the erstwhile owner has stated before the second respondent that he had transferred the subject property in favour of the petitioner's father and he was no longer in possession, and notwithstanding this, the petitioner is not issued with any notice. Sri. Nanja Reddy B.N. further submits that with the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, and because possession is not taken as is required under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act, there must be appropriate declaration as against the impugned Notification.
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:42020 WP No. 12983 of 2022 Sri Nanja Reddy furthermore submits that there cannot be any dispute about the petitioner being in possession in view of the fact that the concerned Tahsildar, in a proceeding under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [for short, 'the KLR Act'] relating to the larger extent of land in Sy.No.96/1 of Kowdenahalli Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, has filed a report stating that the petitioner is indeed in possession of the subject property.
4. Sri. Bhojegouda T. Koller, the learned Additional Government Advocate, relying upon the statement of objections, submits that the petitioner is in illegal possession of the property despite the proceedings culminating in the impugned Notification dated 13.02.1990 [which is gazetted on 05.04.1990], but the learned Additional Government Advocate is unable to controvert vital submissions viz., that the petitioner's father had purchased the property way -6- NC: 2023:KHC:42020 WP No. 12983 of 2022 back in the year 1979; that the proceeding under Section 10 of the ULC Act [and the earlier proceedings] is completed without notice to the petitioner's father; and that the petitioner continues in possession of the subject property. In which event, the petitioner must succeed insofar as the challenge to the Notification dated 13.02.1990 [which is gazetted on 05.04.1990] irrespective of the question of possession.
5. The petitioner will be entitled for revenue entries for the subject property consequentially and must be given liberty to file appropriate application as contemplated under Chapter XI of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [for short, 'the KLR Act'] for mutation, but the petitioner cannot take any advantage of this conclusion to assert possession as against the third parties, and if there is any cause against the third parties as against possession of the subject property, or any portion thereof, the -7- NC: 2023:KHC:42020 WP No. 12983 of 2022 petitioner must necessarily work out his remedy in a properly instituted suit. Hence, the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed in part, and the impugned Notification dated 13.02.1990 [which is gazetted on 05.04.1990] is quashed with liberty to the petitioner to file an application with the third respondent - the Tahsildhar - as contemplated under Chapter XI of the KLR Act for restoration of the revenue entries.
Sd/-
JUDGE RB