Karnataka High Court
Sri. M. Venkata Rayudu vs State Of Karnataka on 30 May, 2023
-1-
WP No. 8878 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT PETITION NO. 8878 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. M. VENKATA RAYUDU,
S/O LATE SRI. M. NARSIMHAN,
AGED 67 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.2584,
18TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE,
KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT,
BANGALORE - 560 078.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANGAMESH R.B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THE REVENUE SECRETARY,
BANGALORE - 01.
Digitally signed
by V
MANJUSHA 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BAI
BANGALORE SOUTH,
Location: High
Court of BANGALORE - 01.
Karnataka
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR,
REGIONAL LAND RECORDS,
BANGALORE DIVISION,
BANGALORE - 01.
4. LAND RECORDS DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
BANGALORE - 01.
-2-
WP No. 8878 of 2023
5. LAND RECORDS ASST. DIRECTOR,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE - 01.
6. TAHSILDAR,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
KANDAYA BHAVAN,
BANGALORE - 01.
7. SRI. P. R. SURESH,
S/O SRI. RAMASWAMY @ SRINIVAS,
RAMASWAMY PILAPAKKAM,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT NO.C1, PEVELLA APARTEMNT,
NO.92/1, 3RD CROSS,
LAVELLE ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
8. DR. YENIGALLA SARATH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI. POORNACHANDRA
RAO YENIGALLA,
R/AT #100, OPP. RTO OFFICE,
P & T COLONY, THIRUMALAGIRI,
SECUNDERABAD - 500 015.
9. SRI. D.S. SUDHAKAR BABU,
S/O LATE SEETHARAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/AT #67/2, FLAT NO.214,
2ND BLOCK, PARIVAR PALACE APARTMENT,
DEVARCHIKIKKANAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 078.
10. MR. V. NAGESH,
S/O PRAHLAD RAO,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT #863, 9TH 'B' MAIN,
ISRO LAYOUT/1, MARUTHI NILAYA,
BANGALORE - 560 078.
-3-
WP No. 8878 of 2023
11. SRI. VENKATESH,
S/O SANJEEVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT RACHANAMADU VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 060.
12. PURSHOTHAM L.,
S/O H. LANKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
13. MANJULA L.,
D/O H.LANKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NOs.12 & 13
R/AT 5/1, MARUTHI NILAYA,
7TH MAIN ROAD, INFRONT OF
POWER OFFICE, SHIVAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 10.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. K.SHOBHA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R6;
SRI. S.V.GIRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R7)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 01.06.2022 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
IN CASE NO.Ji.Tam.Sa/Bhu.Uo.Ni/APPEAL.48/2020-21
PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
WP No. 8878 of 2023
ORDER
The case of the petitioner is that he has purchased 1 acre 20 guntas of property in Sy.No.15/4 at Rachanamadu Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk from one Dr.Yenigalla Sarath, respondent No.8. The lands in the said Sy.No.15/4 along with lands in Sy.No.15/5, 6 and 7 were originally part of Sy.No.15/3. At the behest of respondent No.7, who claimed to have purchased a portion of the property situated in Sy.No.15/3, respondent No.4 passed an order dated 01.06.2022, bearing No.f.vÁA.¸À/¨sÀÆ.G.¤/C¦Ã®Ä:48/2020-21 (vide Annexure-B to the writ petition), wherein, he has ordered the phodi durasthi in respect of Sy.Nos.15/3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 be set aside and has directed to record the same as it existed originally in Sy.No.15/3 and thereafter, verify all the sale deeds executed in respect of the lands situated in Sy.No.15/3 and thereafter, conduct phodi and durasthi by giving notice to all the participants. The said order was challenged by respondent No.10 before respondent No.3, -5- WP No. 8878 of 2023 who has dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
2. The petitioner herein was not made a party to the proceedings before respondent No.4 and instead his predecessor in title was made a party as the RTC with respect of the property purchased by the petitioner still stood in the name of his predecessor in title. The petitioner has remained absent before respondent No.3. The case of the petitioner is that though it is recorded by respondent No.3 that the petitioner has been served with the notice, in fact no notice has been served on him. It is his contention that the impugned order operates in a manner detrimental to his interest.
3. Per contra, the learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 6 upon instructions submits that the impugned orders have been passed after due notice to the concerned parties and the orders are just fair and reasonable and do not operate against any body. She further submits that a part of the property has been acquired by KIADB. -6- WP No. 8878 of 2023
4. Admittedly, all the properties in Sy.No.15/3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 earlier formed part of larger Sy.No.15/3. There were several sale deeds executed in respect of the properties in Sy.No.15/3. At the request of some of the owners who purchased the property subsequently, there were orders for phodi durasthi and Sy.Nos.15/4, 5, 6 and 7 came into existence. Thereafter, a portion of the property has been acquired by KIADB. Respondent No.7 was of the opinion that there was an error in the earlier phodi durasthi conducted and made an application before respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 upon verification of the documents came to the conclusion that there was indeed an error in the earlier phodi durasthi conducted and it would serve the interest of justice if a fresh phodi durasthi is conducted by verifying all the sale deeds executed in respect of the larger Sy.No.15/3 and thereafter, appropriate orders are passed. It is not the case of the petitioner that in the proceedings before respondent No.4 his predecessor in title was not served with due notice. Further, petitioner has not been able to -7- WP No. 8878 of 2023 establish that he was not served with the notice in the proceedings before respondent No.3. Petitioner is not able to establish how the impugned orders are erroneous. His only grievance is that he has not been able to take part in the proceedings. The impugned order passed by respondent No.4 directs the concerned officer to issue notice to all the concerned persons, which means to include the petitioner herein, verify their respective title deeds and only thereafter, pass an order for phodi durasthi. The petitioner is always at liberty to produce his title deeds before the concerned to establish his claim. Under the circumstances, I do not consider this to be a fit case to interfere with the well reasoned orders passed by respondent Nos.4 and 3.
Hence, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE PGG