Karnataka High Court
Sri Mahadevagowda B H vs The Deputy Commissioner on 2 June, 2022
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 02 ND DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
W.P.No.36921/2011 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MAHADEVAGOWDA B.H.
1(a) SMT. NIRMALA MAHADEV
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT NO.660, 5TH CROSS ROAD,
3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE-560034.
1(b) PRABHU MAHADEV
S/O LATE MAHADEVA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
1(c) SUHASINI
D/O LATE MAHADEVA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
THE PETITIONER NOS.1(B)&(C)
ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR
NATURAL MOTHER AND THE
GPA HOLDER
1(a) SMT. NIRMALA MAHADEV
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT NO.660, 5TH CROSS ROAD,
3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE-560034.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MITHUN G.A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
2
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
BANGALORE.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION,
V.V.TOWER,
DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE.
4. THE THASILDHAR,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE.
5. SMT. MUDDURAMAKKA,
D/O BYRAMMA,
MAJOR.
6. SMT. VENKATARAMAIAH,
S/O. LATE THIMMAPPA,
MAJOR.
7. SRI. DASEGOWDA,
S/O. MUDALAPPA,
MAJOR.
RESPONDENTS NO. 4 TO 7 ARE
R/AT RAMOHALLI VILLAGE,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
NOTICE TO R-4 TO R-6 IS HELD SUFFICIENT
V/O/D:24.10.2019; R7 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
ORDERS DATED 14.01.2004 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL
TAHSILDAR THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-E, AND
THE ORDER DATED 11.07.2005 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION
BANGALORE IN R.A.NO.309/2003-04 VIDE ANNEXURE-G
AND THE ORDER DATED 04.05.2011 PASSED BY THE
SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT,
BANGALORE VIDE-ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.
3
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN B 'GROUP' THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
A claim was made by the father of the petitioner contending that he was the beneficiary of an order of re- grant in case No. 43/58. It is however, admitted that the petitioner does not possess the said order of re-grant.
2. The Tahasildar refused the claim of the father of the petitioner on the ground that the there was no order of re-grant at all and this order of the Thasildar has been accepted by the Assistant Commissioner as well as by the Deputy Commissioner, both of whom have held that there was no order of re-grant in favour of the father of the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, contends that in a subsequent proceeding initiated by his father's vendor making a claim over Sy.No.41, the Special Deputy Commissioner in case No.3 has held that the said land had already been sold in favour of the father of the petitioner. He submits that in view of this observation, it is clear that the order of re-grant in favour of the petitioner's father cannot be doubted. A perusal of the said order passed 4 in case No.3 does not inspire confidence. Firstly, because the year related to which the case is filed is not forthcoming and secondly because the date of the order is also not forthcoming.
4. It is pertinent to state here that, if, there was an order of re-grant in favour father of the petitioner, obviously, the revenue entries would have been mutated on the strength of the said order. Admittedly, there is no such order of mutation produced indicating that the revenue entries were changed promptly pursuant to the order of re-grant.
5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the Authorities have justified in coming to the conclusion that there was no order of re-grant in favour of the father of the petitioner. I find no reason to entertain the petition, the same is accordingly, rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE JS/-