Karnataka High Court
Sri. P. Balappa Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 November, 2017
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N. Satyanarayana
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA
WRIT PETITION NO.9146 OF 2016 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. P. BALAPPA REDDY
S/O LATE PEDDANNA @ MUNISWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS,
R/AT NO 154, 7TH MAIN ROAD,
80 FEET ROAD,
SUBBAYYANAPALYA EXTENSION,
BANASAWADI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 033 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI Y.R.SADASHIVA REDDY, SENIOR ADV. FOR
SRI BHADRINATH R., ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
BENGALURU - 560 009
3. THE TAHSILDAR
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 009
2
3. SRI JAYAPRAKASH REDDY
S/O LATE S.A.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT KYALASANAHALLI VILLAGE,
K.R. PURAM, HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 077
4. SRI RAJA REDDY
S/O P PAPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KYALASANAHALLI VILLAGE,
K R PURAM, HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 077
5. SRI S RAGHU
S/O SIDDARAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF KYALASANAHALLI VILLAGE,
K R PURAM HOBLI,
BANGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 077 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR T.L., AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI PRAKASH T.HEBBAR, ADV. FOR R4 AND R5;
SRI M.N.MADHUSUDAN, ADV. FOR R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (i)
QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 28.02.2012 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2 AT ANNEXURES -'A' AND 'B' AND ALSO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.12.2015 PASSED IN RRT
PROCEEDINGS PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AT ANNEXURE -C
AND DIRECT RESPONDENT NOS.2 & 3 TO RESTORE KATHA IN
RESPECT OF THE LAND IN SY.NO.12, NEW SY.NO.85, SITUATED
AT KYALASANAHALLI VILLAGE, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU
EAST TALUK IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The petitioner herein who is claiming himself as owner of 4 acres 9 guntas of land bearing Sy. No.85 of Kyalasanahalli Village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk has come up in this writ petition impugning Annexures - A, B and C which are RRT proceedings under S.136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
2. The brief facts leading to this writ petition are as under:
The dispute between the parties is with reference to flow of title in respect of 8 acres 18 guntas of land in Sy. No.85. The records would indicate that initially 16 acres 36 guntas was granted in favour of one Rajalingam in the year 1942-43 which is not disputed by any of the parties to these proceedings. Records would further indicate that Rajalingam sold the entire extent of 16 acres 36 guntas in Sy. No.85 to one Ramaiah Reddy under registered sale deed dated 02.01.1947. Thereafter, father of the petitioner herein by name Peddanna, purchased an extent of 8 acres 4 18 guntas of land from said Ramaiah Reddy under registered sale deed dated 02.10.1952. Records would further indicate that on 16.01.1958, there was partition in the family of Peddanna whereunder 4 acres 9 guntas was allotted to the share of the petitioner herein and another share was allotted in favour of petitioner's brother Narayanappa. The petitioner herein would further acknowledge that on 28.06.1973, he executed a deed of release of 4 acres 9 guntas of land in Sy. No.85 in favour of his father Peddanna. At this juncture learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5 submitted that release of title deeds in favour of petitioner's father Peddanna is not in question in this writ petition and the lis is only with reference to revenue entries.
3. The execution of release deed dated 28.06.1973 is made in whose favour will have to be dealt with by a competent Court. It is stated further that thereafter, Sri Peddanna, during his lifetime, bequeathed land to an extent of 4 acres 9 guntas in favour of the 5 petitioner Sri Balappa Reddy under registered Will stated to have come into effect in 1978 after the death of Peddanna. Up till now, there is no dispute with reference to narration of facts.
4. It is further disclosed to this Court that brother of petitioner namely Narayanappa sold an extent of 4 acres 9 guntas to one Sri Raghu who is 6th respondent in these proceedings, under registered sale deed dated 14.09.1981. It is further averred that wife and children of Narayanappa have sold an extent of 2 acres 4½ guntas in favour of 4th respondent Sri Jayaprakash Reddy and another 2 acres and 4½ guntas to 5th respondent Sri Raja Reddy under two separate sale deeds executed on 24.11.2004, based on which it is averred that RRT proceedings was sought to be initiated by them and which is accepted in their behalf.
5. The proceedings in RRT(2)/CR/4/2011-12 and RRT(2)/CR/5/2011-12 is conducted by a Spl. Deputy Commissioner. An Officer who did not have the power to 6 deal with the matter has passed the Order dated 28.02.2012 in the aforesaid two proceedings as found at Annexures - A and B. Subsequently, the Government by a Notification dated 10.10.2014 has ordered that the earlier Notification Nos. RD 400 ASD 2011 dated 10.10.2011 and RD 807 ASD 2014 dated 30.09.2014 have been rescinded. In the said Notification it is further ordered that all the proceedings which are decided by Spl. Deputy Commissioner after 10.10.2011, under S.136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, are without jurisdiction and therefore the said orders are required to be reconsidered. In fact, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.23360/2012 has taken similar view on 21.09.2016. Following the same, Annexures - A and B are required to be quashed as they cannot be enforced.
Hence, Orders dated 28.02.2012 passed in RRT(2)/CR/4/2011-12 and RRT(2)/CR/5/2011-12 vide Annexures - A and B are hereby quashed. 7
6. Coming to Annexure-C, it is seen that the proceedings in RRT.CR.208/2012-13 has been initiated by the State with reference to an order passed registering khata of 4 acres 9 guntas in Sy. No.85 of Kyalasanahalli Village Krishnarajapura Hobli in favour of S. Raghu. While considering the said petition, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein have got themselves impleaded in the said proceedings which is connected with RRT(2)(E)CR.3/2011- 12, wherein the rights of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 herein was decided by the Spl. Deputy Commissioner in his Order dated 09.12.2015 without considering the rival claim of the petitioner herein with reference to his right of an extent of 4 acres 9 guntas in land bearing Sy. No.85 which according to him has accrued in his favour by virtue of a registered Will executed by his father on 11.07.1974 which has come into effect after the death of his father in the year 1978.
7. At this juncture, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 tried to intervene and state that 8 there were several rounds of civil litigation with reference to the said Will. In any event, this Court will not go into the correctness or otherwise of the Will or any other document/s which are required to be decided by the competent Court, where rights of concerned parties are required to be decided. The Spl. Deputy Commissioner, 2nd respondent herein is required to conduct a de-novo enquiry in the aforesaid proceedings namely, RRT.CR.208/2012-13 connected with RRT(2)(E)CR.3/2011- 12, after giving notice to the petitioner herein and decide the matter afresh.
In the light of the above, Annexure-C is quashed and the matter is remitted to the 2nd respondent. The remitted matter be taken up on 05.12.2017. Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 as well as the petitioner herein shall be present before the Spl. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District on 05.12.2017 on which day a formal order be passed by the Spl. Deputy Commissioner arraying the petitioner herein 9 as one of the respondents and thereafter the matter shall be heard and disposed of within 180 days. In the said proceedings, all the contentions of the parties are kept open.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE sac*