Karnataka High Court
Sri. T.R. Muniraju vs Sri. M. Chandra Reddy on 13 January, 2020
Bench: Chief Justice, Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.2 OF 2020 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI T.R. MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE. SRI N.P. RAMAIAH
@ N.P. RAMAIAH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT No.27, 3RD CROSS
I MAIN, VINAYAKANAGAR
'B' BLOCK, KONENA AGRAHARA
BENGALURU - 560 017. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI M. CHANDRA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
SON OF LATE MUNISWAMY REDDY.
2. SRI C. LOHIT
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
SON OF SRI M. CHANDRA REDDY.
RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ARE
R/AT No.2491, 17TH MIAN
HAL 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU - 08.
-2-
3. SMT. DIVYA. C
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
D/O SRI M. CHANDRA REDDY
W/O SRI NAVIN KUMAR.S
R/AT No.197, IRIS MANOR
2ND MAIN, 2ND STAGE, DOMLUR
BENGALURU - 560 017.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
KANDAYA BHAVANA
BENGALURU - 560 009.
5. THE TAHSILDAR
K.R. PURAM
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 048.
6. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
(STORM WATER DRAIN)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
4TH BLOCK, 9TH FLOOR
JAYANAGAR BDA COMPLEX
BENGALURU - 560 011. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO a) PERUSE THE
SAME, HEAR THE APPELLANT AND ALLOW THE APPEAL BY
SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09/09/2019,
PASSED THEREIN BY THE HONOURABLE SINGLE JUDGE AND
ALLOW THE SAID WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR AND
GRANT SIMILAR RELIEFS. b) GRANT COSTS OF THE ABOVE
APPEAL AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
JUDGMENT
This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 9th September, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P No.53807/2018, whereby the challenge to the notifications issued under Section 68(1) and 68(5) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,1964 (for short `Act') has been rejected.
2. The appellant herein is claiming to be the co-owner of the land bearing Sy.No.58/1 measuring 5 acres 30 guntas and the land measuring 2 acres 37 guntas in Sy.No.63/1 including 16 guntas of `B' Kharab land both situated at Thubarahalli village, Vartuhur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. He filed writ petition before this Court challenging the notification dated 13th August 2008 issued under Section 68(1) of the Act and also the notification dated 24th February 2009 issued under Section 68(5) of the Act. Under the said notifications, it was declared that the rights of the public over 16 guntas of `B' Kharab land in Sy.No.63/1 stand extinguished.
-4-
3. Learned Single Judge after considering that the writ petition was filed after inordinate and unexplained delay of more than nine years and also that a civil suit in O.S.No.4233/2011 on the file of the Civil Court, Bengaluru with regard to the disputed land is pending adjudication, dismissed the writ petition. Assailing the correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, this writ appeal is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge was not right in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay as he was not aware of the publication of the impugned notifications and he learnt about the publication of the notifications only when the respondents No.1 to 3 placed the said notifications in the proceedings initiated by him under Section 9(1) of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011. He also submitted that the procedure prescribed under Section 68(1) of the Act was not followed before the land in question was -5- denotified. He further submitted that there is a Raja Kaluve running through the land in question and as such extinguishing the rights of the public over the land in question is illegal and arbitrary.
5. The Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents justified the order passed by the learned Single Judge and sought for dismissal of the writ appeal.
6. We have examined the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and also the material on record.
7. The impugned notification under Section 68(1) of the Act was published in the official gazette on 13th August 2008 inviting objections from interested persons as to why the right of the public over the land in question should not be extinguished. The petitioner did not file any objections to the said notification as required under Section 68(2) of the Act. Having regard to the fact that no valid objections were filed, -6- the Government of Karnataka issued the impugned notification under Section 68(5) of the Act extinguishing the right of the public over the land in question. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was not aware of the publication of the impugned notifications cannot be accepted since the impugned notifications were published in the official gazette and therefore, it is presumed that the publication of the impugned notifications are well within the knowledge of the appellant on the date of publication in the official gazette. The learned Single Judge exercising extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay. Further the appellant has not placed any material to substantiate his claim that the procedure prescribed was not followed before issuing the impugned notifications.
8. Even on merits, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that there is a Raja -7- Kaluve running on the land in question cannot be accepted for the reason that there is no material produced to substantiate the said claim, more so, in the background of the order passed by the competent Court established under the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 dismissing the complaint of the appellant holding that the land in question is not classified as Raja Kaluve.
9. The learned Single Judge was also justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that there is a dispute with regard to the title pending adjudication before the jurisdictional Civil Court and it would not be appropriate to go into the disputed facts since it may prejudice the rights of the parties and also that the disputed question of facts cannot be determined in writ petition.
Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the well considered order passed by the learned Single Judge. The order passed -8- by the learned Single Judge is just and appropriate. Hence, the writ appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE Bkm