Karnataka High Court
Shri Doddappaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 10 December, 2020
Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF DECEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO.54573/2016 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI DODDAPPAIAH
S/O LATE BODAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 91 YEARS,
2. SHRI D RAMAIAH
S/O SHRI. DODDAPPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
3. SHRI D LAKSHMANA
S/O LATE DODDAPPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT:
SHANTHI LAYOUT,
KOWDENAHALLI, K.R.PURAM HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRAKASH T HEBBAR, ADVOCATE FOR P1 (VC);
SRI. YESHU MISHRA, ADVOCATE FOR P2 AND P3)
2
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
MULTI-STORIED BUILDING,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
K N NANJAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS,
2. SMT LAKSHMIDEVI,
W/O LATE K.N.NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
3. SHRI N GIRISH BABU
S/O LATE K.N.NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
4. SHRI K N GANGADHAR
S/O LATE K.N. NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
SL.NOS. 2 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT:
"S.V.NILAYA"
5TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS,
RAJIV GANDHI STREET OLD EXTENSION,
K.R.PURAM,
BENGALURU-560036.
5. SMT. K. N. SUJATHA
D/O LATE K.N.NANJAPPA,
W/O SHRI B.R.JAYARAM,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
C/O. G.SRINIVASA,
3
NO.D-468, EAST 3RD LINE I.T.I. COLONY,
DOORAVANINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 016.
6. SMT RAMADEVI
D/O LATE K.N.NANJAPPA,
W/O SHRI NARASIMHA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
KOTE ROAD,
NEAR SRIRAMA TEMPLE,
GOWRIBIDANUR TOWN - 561 208
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
7. THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANT
TO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
AND EX-OFFICIO DEPUTY
DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
BENGALURU- 560 009
8. THE TAHSILDAR
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU.- 560 036
9. THE TALUK SURVEYOR
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
K.R.PUAM, BENGALURU. - 560 036
10 . SHRI MUNI RAJU
S/O LATE NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT 9TH CROSS,
ST.ANTHONY SCHOOL ROAD,
NAGAPPA BUILDING,
RAMAMURTHY NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560016.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANDESH KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1, R7 TO R9
4
SRI. G. PAPI REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4
R5, R6 AND R10- SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.09.2016 PASSED BY THE
KAT, BENGALURU IN APPEAL NO. 798/2012 AS PER
ANNEXURE-J SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
01.08.2012 PASSED BY THE R-7 AND TO CONFIRM THE
SAID ORDER DATED 01.08.2012 PASSED BY THE R-7 VIDE
ANNEXURE-H, BY ALLOWING THIS W.P AND ETC .,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMNARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The writ petition is filed impugning the order dated 16.09.2016 in Appeal No. 798/2012 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal [for short, 'the Tribunal'] whereby, the order dated 01.08.2012 by the Technical Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner and Ex-officio Deputy Director of Land Records, Bengaluru Urban District [the seventh respondent] is set-aside. The seventh respondent has cancelled the subdivision of the land in Sy.No.39 of Kowdenahalli village, K R Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk and directed re-survey after notice to all the concerned. 5
2. The dispute in the present proceedings is between the petitioners and the second to fourth respondents about the survey proceedings for the land in Sy.No.39 of Kowdenahalli village, K R Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, but the dispute is not about the ownership of the respective extents in this land in Sy No.39 of Kowdenahalli village, K R Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. The petitioners own 3 acres in this land in Sy.No.39 and second to sixth respondents own adjacent 37 guntas of land. The first petitioner, under whom the other petitioners claim, has purchased 3 acres under the sale deed dated 07.03.1979, and the second to sixth respondents' predecessor-in-title, Sri K.N.Nanjappa, has purchased the land measuring 37 guntas under the Sale Deed dated 28.9.1979.
3. The petitioners have inter se entered into a partition vide the partition deed 26.5.2010 partitioning the aforesaid land measuring 3 acres in Sy.No.39 by metes and 6 bounds based on a Sketch in Form No.11E of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules,1966 (for short 'the Rules') obtained by them for this land. After the execution of the aforesaid registered partition deed, the survey records and the revenue records are accordingly updated. Insofar as the survey number, the land owned by Sri K.N.Nanjappa is assigned sub-division No.3 [Sy No. 39/3] and the lands owned by the petitioners in terms of the partition deed are assigned sub- division Nos.2 and 4 to 9 [Sy No. 39/2 and 39/4-9]. The extent measuring 1 acre 29 guntas owned by Sri Muniraju, the tenth respondent, is assigned Sy No. 39/1.
4. The petitioners have subsequently entered into deed of cancellation dated 4.7.2011 setting at naught the division of 3 [Three] acres in Sy No. 39 amongst them and thereafter they have filed appeal under Section 49A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (For short 'the Act') before the Deputy Director of Land Records, Bangalore East, Bangalore (DDLR) impugning the survey proceeding pursuant 7 to their registered partition deed which has culminated with the impugned order dated 16.9.2016 in Appeal No.798/2012 by the Tribunal.
5. Sri Anoop Haranahalli, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the DDLR on scrutiny of the records has categorically concluded that the impugned survey proceedings are completed without due adherence to the provisions of Sections 50 and 55 of the Rules, but the Tribunal without considering this aspect has set aside the DDLR's orders directing re-survey only on the ground that the survey proceedings and the sub division was at the petitioners' behest and upon their application in that regard.
6. Sri Papireddy, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents - the second to sixth respondents - submits that the petitioners, who have secured the Sketch in Form No.11E prior to the partition deed and the subsequent durasth proceedings in consonance with the Sketch in Form No.11E cannot, renege on the same on the ground that there is non- 8 compliance with the provisions of Rules 50 and 55 of the Rules. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly set aside the orders of the DDLR. Sri Papireddy emphasizes that the petitioners have encroached an extent of 3½ guntas in these respondents' land and therefore the respondents have filed the suit in O.S. No.1737/2012 on the file of the IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore for declaration of ownership to an extent of 3½ guntas which is encroached and for necessary consequential reliefs.
7. It is undisputed that the lands owned by the petitioners and the contesting respondents are largely vacant, and a peculiar feature of this case is that a registered partition deed amongst the petitioners is cancelled on the ground that there were discrepancies in the 11E Sketch issued for the purpose of execution of such partition deed. The controversy between the petitioners and the contesting respondents is whether their possession of the respective extents in this land in Sy No. 39 of of Kowdenahalli village, K 9 R Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk is as per their deeds or otherwise, and if they are not, the consequences there of will have to be adjudicated. This controversy, unless there is a consensus, cannot be decided in the survey proceedings. The parties are already at lis in the suit in O.S. No.1737/2012 on the file of the IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, and the lis encompasses all the aforesaid controversies which will have to be adjudicated in such suit.
8. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case the interests of justice command that the petitioners should be given liberty to make an application with the jurisdictional Assistant Director of Land Records (ADLR) for survey/durasth of the land measuring 3 acres claimed by them and 37 guntas claimed by the contesting respondents, and if such application is made, the ADLR must demarcate the respective portions indicating encroachments, if any, for appropriate decision by the civil court in the pending civil suit after due trial. The ADLR in such exercise should not be 10 influenced by any observations made either by the DDLR or by the Appellate Tribunal.
The writ petition stands accordingly disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE nv