Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: rrt in Sri. P. Balappa Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 November, 2017Matching Fragments
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 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.
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 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 RD 400 ASD 2011 dated 10.10.2011 and RD 807 ASD 2014 dated 30.09.2014 have been rescinded.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.
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 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.