Karnataka High Court
Mr. Arun H R vs S Jagadeesh on 16 April, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1263 OF 2022
BETWEEN
MR. ARUN H.R
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
S/O RAJA REDDY
RESIDING AT:
#455, HIG COLONY,
7TH CROSS,
BANGALORE NORTH
REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER
MR. YESWANTH P REDDY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O LATE PRABHAKAR REDDY
RESIDING AT:
#1067, 11 TH MAIN,
HAL IIND STAGE
BENGALURU-560 008 .
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.T. NANAIAH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ARAVIND BASAPPA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . S JAGADEESH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
2 . S GURUPRASAD
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
BOTH SONS OF LATE
SANJEEVAPPA,
RESIDING AT
2
#7, 7TH CROSS,
ASHRAYA LAYOUT,
TAMBU CHETTYPALYA,
BENGALORE-560036.
3 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU CITY DISTRICT,
BENGALURU-560 001.
4 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION,
KANDAYA BHAVAN,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R CHANDRANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2,
SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R3 & R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15/11/2022 PASSED
BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.6304/2019 AND TO
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, RAJESH RAI K, J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
3
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) This intra Court appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 15.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6304/2019, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by quashing the order dated 27.04.2018 passed in R.P.No.109/2014 by respondent No.3.
2. The abridged facts of the case are as follows:
The immovable property bearing Sy.No.77/1 of Adigondanahalli Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District measuring an extent of 3 acre 16 guntas (including 4 guntas kharab) was collectively owned by respondents No.1 and 2. Out of the same, an extent of 9 guntas was used in road formation. The remaining 3 acres 3 guntas of land bearing Sy.No.77/1 was sold to one Smt. Shanta Mary by way of a registered Sale Deed dated 17.09.1992 vide document No.1685/1992-93. Accordingly, all revenue entries were mutated in the name of Smt. Shanta Mary.
However, RTC entries for the entire extent of 3 acre 12 guntas excluding 4 guntas kharab were transferred in the name of Smt. Shanta Mary. After a lapse of 20 years of alienation, on 30.09.2013, the respondents No.1 and 2 (the original owners i.e., vendors of Smt. Shanta Mary) made an application to respondent No.4 seeking 4 to change the RTC entries with respect to 9 guntas of land in their names.
3. Based on the said application filed by respondents No.1 and 2, respondent No.4 issued a letter dated 03.02.2014 to the Tahsildar directing him to conduct an enquiry and to follow the procedure stipulated in Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. However, the Tahsildar by relying on the letter of respondent No.4, entered the names of respondents No.1 and 2 in the RTC vide MR No.H16/2013-2014. Against these entries, Smt. Shanta Mary preferred a revision in R.P.No.109/2014 before respondent No.3, who after collectively hearing all the parties set- aside the mutation entries made in MR No.H16/2013-2014 dated 07.03.2014 and directed the RTC entries to be restored in the name of Smt. Shanta Mary. Aggrieved by the said order, respondents No.1 and 2 filed a writ petition in W.P.No.6304/2019 before the learned Single Judge of this Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, Smt. Shanta Mary expired on 25.05.2020 and her legal heirs alienated the said property bearing Sy.No.77/1 of Adigondanahalli Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District measuring an extent of 3 acre 3 guntas in favour of the appellant by way of a registered Sale Deed dated 20.12.2021 vide document No.ABL-1-07488-2021-22 stored in CD No.ABLD 1061. 5
4. Thereafter, the purchaser i.e., the appellant filed an impleading application in the writ proceedings, the said application came to be allowed and the appellant filed his objections to the writ petition. Subsequently, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order passed in R.P.No.109/2014 and directed the Tahsildar to restore the name of respondents No.1 and 2 in the RTC entries. The said order is challenged in this appeal.
5. We have heard the learned senior counsel Sri. M.T.Nanaiah, the learned counsel Sri. R. Chandranna for respondents No.1 and 2 and the learned AGA Smt. Mamatha Shetty for respondents No.3 and 4 and also perused the documents placed before us.
6. The primary contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant is that the learned Single Judge has erred in not considering respondents No.1 and 2 were not in possession of 9 guntas of land in Sy.No.77/1 and that there was no land in balance after execution of the Sale Deed dated 17.09.1992 by respondents No.1 and 2 to Smt. Shanta Mary for the extent of 3 acre 3 guntas by excluding the extent of existing road and kharab land. The learned senior counsel further contended that the respondents No.1 and 2 originally owned 3 acres 12 guntas of land (excluding 4 guntas of kharab), out of which 9 guntas of land was used in road formation and the same was admitted by the respondents No.1 and 6 2 in the Sale Deed dated 17.09.1992 vide document No.1685/1992-
93. The RTC entries for the entire extent of 3 acre 12 guntas were transferred in favour of Smt. Shanta Mary in order to avoid future discrepancies and dispute as the respondents No.1 and 2 admittedly were not in possession of any land.
7. According to the learned Senior counsel, the learned Single Judge failed to consider that respondents No.1 and 2 had filed an application dated 30.09.2013 seeking to restore the RTC entries after a lapse of more than 20 years from the date when their names were struck off from the RTC and the said application was hit by delay and laches.
8. The learned Senior counsel additionally contended that the learned Single Judge erred in not noticing that the Tahsildar while restoring the entries in favour of respondents No.1 and 2, had failed to notify the erstwhile owner Smt. Shanta Mary and thereby violated the principles of natural justice. Nevertheless, although respondent No.4 directed the Tahsildar to conduct an enquiry by following the procedure stipulated in Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, however, the Tahsildar unilaterally restored the names of respondents No.1 and 2 in the RTC without hearing the aggrieved parties. With these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.
7
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that the learned Single Judge on examining the entire materials passed the order by considering the aspect that when there is a registered Sale Deed, there is no duty cast upon the respondents to notify the revenue authorities seeking mutation of entries as the revenue authorities are duty bound to mutate the revenue entries. Thus, the delay and laches does not attract in the instant case. Further, the respondents No.1 and 2 have been in actual possession and enjoyment of 12 guntas of land including 4 guntas of kharab land in Sy.No.77/1 after selling 3 acre 3 guntas to Smt. Shanta Mary in the year 1992. The entry reflecting in the name of Smt. Shanta Mary i.e., vendor of the appellant against the land measuring 3 acre 12 guntas in Sy.No.77/1 is contrary to the registered Sale Deed dated 17.09.1992 under which she had exclusively purchased the land measuring 3 acre 3 guntas in the said Sy.No.77/1 from respondents No.1 and 2. As such, respondent No.3 rightly passed an order dated 27.04.2018 in R.P.No.109/2014 and the learned Single Judge has grossly erred by allowing the writ petition filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 by setting aside the order passed by the respondent No.3.
10. As per the directions of this Court dated 05.02.2025, the learned Government Advocate secured instructions regarding the date of acquisition and road formation on the property in 8 question and placed the same with a memo. The said mahazar discloses that in Sy.No.77/1, there ran a cart-road measuring 4 guntas since 30-35 years and presently 14 feet tar-road runs measuring 6.8 guntas.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the sole point that arises for our consideration is:
"Whether the learned Single Judge is justified in allowing the writ petition by setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner?"
12. As could be gathered from the records, based on the application of respondents No.1 and 2, the respondent No.4 on 03.02.2014 directed the Tahsildar to conduct an enquiry for change of the mutation entries with respect to 9 guntas of land as claimed by respondents No.1 and 2 by following the procedure stipulated in Sections 128 and 129 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. However, the Tahsildar without issuing notice and without conducting an enquiry, on considering the direction issued by the respondent No.4 as an order, mutated the RTC in the name of respondents No.1 and 2. Further, respondents No.1 and 2 originally owned 3 acre 12 guntas of land (excluding 4 guntas of kharab) and some portion of this land were used in road formation as admitted by respondents No.1 and 2 in the Sale Deed dated 17.09.1992 in the schedule mentioned therein. This aspect is forthcoming in the 9 report filed by the Government along with mahazar. In such circumstances, the respondents No.1 and 2 are duty bound to prove that there exists surplus land of 9 guntas after the land is used for road formation. Further, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2, respondents No.1 and 2 filed an application dated 30.09.2013 for restoration of RTC after a lapse of more than 20 years from the date when their names were struck off from RTC. As such, there is an inordinate delay and laches in approaching the respondent No.4 by respondents No.1 and 2. In such circumstances, the Tahsildar ought not to have ordered the mutation entry and akarband of 9 guntas of land in the name of respondents No.1 and 2. The respondent No.3 has rightly cancelled the same and directed respondents No.1 and 2 to approach the Civil Court to establish their right with respect to 9 guntas of land. Against this backdrop, in our considered opinion the learned Single Judge has erred while passing the impugned order which calls for interference by this Court. Accordingly, we answer the point raised above in the negative and proceed to pass the following.
ORDER
i. The Writ Appeal is allowed.
ii. Consequently the order passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.No.6304/2019 dated
15.11.2022 is set-aside by affirming the order 10 passed by the respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner in R.P.No.109/2014 dated 27.04.2018. It goes without saying that the respondents No.1 and 2 are at liberty to approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief. Pending interlocutory application[s], if any, stands disposed of.
SD/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV