Writ Petition No. 208 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:753 WP No. 208 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 208 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. VIDYALAKSHMI NAGARAJAN, W/O. SRI. RAJESH RAMAN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.452, 3RD CROSS, 16TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 034. (BY SRI. PRUTHVISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RANGANATH R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 003. 3. TAHSILDAR, BANGALORE NORTH ADDITIONAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. BENGALURU - 560 003.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K, HCGP) …PETITIONER …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:753 WP No. 208 of 2025 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALLING UPON R-2 TO DISPOSE OFF THE CASE NO. RRT/CR/56/08 ON THE FILE OF SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-3 IN ANNX-L BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU WITHIN A PERIOD OF 2 WEEKS AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed assailing the inaction on the part of respondent No.2 in not deciding the pending revision since 2011. 2. Facts leading to the case are as under: The subject matter of the present petition is 3 acres of land situated towards the southern portion in sy.No.50/P15. It is not in dispute that the petition land is part and parcel of the total extent measuring 6 acres, which is admittedly granted land and enquiry was initiated on the premises that the petitioner has - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:753 WP No. 208 of 2025 purchased the gomala land. This Court, vide order dated 28-05-2012 in W.P.47424/2011, directed the respondents to rehear the matter and adjudicate the matter afresh by notifying all the parties. Though this remand order was passed way back in 2012, respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, is found conveniently squatting over these proceedings. This is a clear case of laxness and demonstrates a lack of diligence and insensitivity on the part of respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner. While respondent No.2- Deputy Commissioner, is required to decide the petitioner's claim in the light of subsequent developments. 3. The Respondent No.2, the Deputy Commissioner, is obligated to acknowledge and give effect to the order previously issued concerning the northern portion of three acres within the same survey number. Notably, Respondent No.2 has already - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:753 WP No. 208 of 2025 adjudicated upon the matter and has reached a definitive conclusion regarding the nature of the land in question. Specifically, the Deputy Commissioner has determined that Sy.No.50/P15 does not fall under the category of gomala land. This finding was made in the context of the claim of the purchaser of the said three acres, who has benefited from a prior order issued by the competent authority. The said order unequivocally recognized the grant of three acres within the aforementioned survey number as legitimate and genuine. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner resolved the matter by endorsing the authenticity of the grant and proceeding to bring the related proceedings to a logical conclusion. In support of this determination, the relevant paragraph from the earlier order is extracted as follows: "By perusing the material documents available on record it shows that, the land measuring to an extent of 06 Acres in the subject property in Sy. No.50 of Kuduregere Village was granted in favour of one, S.Narayanappa on - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:753 WP No. 208 of 2025 24.10.1956 as per the Dharkasth register No.SCR/3/56- 57, which is evident by Dharkasth Register Extract of the year 1955-56-57. Further, there is a entry in the Record of Rights and Index of Land to substantiate the Grant in the previous favour of above S.Narayanappa. In occasion, while passing the Order it is categorically stated that, "by personally visited to the Taluk Office and original Dharkasth Register has been perused". the said extent of It shows that, the above said S.Narayanappa sold and conveyed 3 Acres out of 06 Acres in favour of one. Muninarayanappa S/o Munianjinappa under a registered sale deed dated 19.01.1972 and his name has been mutated in the revenue records as per M.R.No.64/1994- 95. Subsequently, Said Muninarayanappa sold and conveyed favour of M.Annayappa S/o Mallappa under a registered sale deed dated 30.12.1974. The respondent herein has purchased the above said land under a sale deed dated 06.11.1981 executed by M.Annayappa. Accordingly, his name has been mutated in the revenue records as per M.R. No.66/94-95. Accordingly, he is in exclusively enjoyment of the land in question, the RTC for the year 1978-79 to 2009-10, M.R. No.66/94-95 also support the above contention of the respondent. land in By considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the proceedings against the respondent is liable to be dropped. Hence, I proceed to pass the following;
Decision
ORDER By invoking the provision of section 136(3) of the K.L.R. Act, 1964. I am of the opinion that, the grant in respect of the land bearing Sy. No.50/P10 measuring to an extent of 03 Acres situated in Kuduregere Village, Jala Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk, is genuine one. Accordingly, the above proceedings has been dropped. Further I hereby direct the Tahsildar, Yelahanka Taluk to continue the revenue entry in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.50/P15 measuring to an extent of 03 Acres situated in Kudugere Village, Jala Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk, in accordance with law.” - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:753 WP No. 208 of 2025 4. In view of the concluded enquiry and the findings therein, it is evident that the petitioner, who is the purchaser of the remaining three acres of land within the same survey number, is entitled to have his claim considered and resolved on the principle of parity. The conclusions recorded in Annexure-M, which recognize the validity of the grant and the ownership rights of the purchaser of the northern three acres, serve as a strong precedent in the petitioner’s case. The principles of equity and consistency necessitate that similar treatment be accorded to the petitioner, as both cases arise from the same survey number and pertain to similar facts and circumstances. 5. It is well-established that when a competent authority has rendered a decision regarding a portion of land within a survey number, and such a decision has become final, the benefit of that decision naturally extends to similarly situated parties unless there are - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:753 WP No. 208 of 2025 compelling reasons to hold otherwise. In the petitioner’s case, no distinguishing factors have been brought to light that would warrant a deviation from the conclusions drawn in Annexure-M. The Deputy Commissioner’s determination that Sy.No.50/P15 is not gomala land, coupled with the recognition of the genuineness of the grant for the northern three acres, inherently reinforces the petitioner’s claim to the remaining three acres. 6. To deny the petitioner the benefit of the conclusions recorded in Annexure-M would not only result in an inequitable outcome but would also undermine the consistency and credibility of administrative decisions. Therefore, this Court, in the interest of justice and fairness, deems it appropriate to extend the benefit of the earlier order to the petitioner. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this Court proceeds to pass the following order: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:753 WP No. 208 of 2025 ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed; ii. Respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, is hereby directed to forthwith decide the pending revision in RRT/CR/56/08 by taking cognizance of the order passed in RRT.(2)(NA)CR:57/2011-12; iii. This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of order copy. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34 CT: BHK