Writ Petition No. 2913 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.2913 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1 . SURESH G. NANWANI S/O LATE. GOPALDAS NANWANI AGED 68 YEARS HUNSAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE JALA 2 HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BANGALORE-562 157. REPRESENTED BY HIS SPA HOLDER ANOOP VANJANI (BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE) ...PETITIONER AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA DR. BR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560 001. 2 3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560 001. 4 . THE TAHSILDAR OFFICE BANGALORE NORTH TALUK YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560 064. 5 . LAKSHMINARAYANA SHETTY S/O LATE VENKATARAMANA SHETTY AGED 76 YEARS RESIDING AT HUNSAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE JALA 2 HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BANGALORE - 562 157. 6 . SRI. SANTHOSH RAJ URS. B.Y S/O SAROJA. R AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.318, ARASU MANSION SECOND FLOOR, 12TH A MAIN ROAD 6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560 010. 7 . SMT. PRARTHANA. A.G D/O A.S. GURUSWAMY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.690/91 BB GARDEN ROAD AGRAHARA, MYSURU-570 004. 8 . SRI. SAINATH NAGURE S/O ANNEPPA NAGURE AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO. FALGUNI 601 OLETY LANDMARK APARTMENT NO.23, 3RD CROSS 2ND MAIN, SHANKUMUTT 3 VAIYALIKAVAL LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 086. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P.RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. B.R.PRASANNA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5; SRI. B.Y.KIRAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R7; SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MANU .K, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R8) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED JANUARY 24, 2024, PASSED BY R-2 IN REVISION PETITION NO.478/2024 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 21.02.2025, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM C.A.V ORDER Petitioner is assailing the order passed by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-A. Consequently, a mandamus is sought to restore M.R.No.H4/2021-22 thereby upholding petitioner's ownership and possession over 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.155/1. 2. The subject matter of this petition is 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.155/1 situated at Hunasamaranahalli, Jala- 4 2 Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk. The petitioner asserts title over the disputed property based on grant order dated 06.10.1962 issued in favour or petitioner's predecessor in title Jayaramaiah. Petitioner claims that though Jayaramaiah applied for grant of occupancy rights to an extent of 4 acres 10 guntas, the entire extent measuring 5 acres 4 guntas was reflected in the revenue records thereby grantee was in exclusive possession of 5 acres 4 guntas and asserted absolute title and the subsequent alienations also indicate that the entire extent measuring 5 acres 4 guntas was the subject matter of conveyance and after several transfers, this disputed property is now gifted to petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 03.07.2021 and accordingly, ownership is recorded pursuant to certification of M.R.No.H4/2021-22. Petitioner therefore, feeling
Legal Reasoning
aggrieved by the disputed mutation order pursuant to order passed by the respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner and 5 confirmed by the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner is before this Court. 3. Respondent Nos.6 to 8 have filed statement of objections and have tried to counter the petitioner's claim. While refuting the averments made in the petition, the respondents have averred that land bearing Sy.No.155 stood vested with the State pursuant to Inams Abolition Act, 1955. Referring to moola tippanni prepared in respect of Sy.No.155 on 14.12.1956, respondents claim that this land was subjected to phodi and the land accordingly stood divided into two parts i.e., Sy.Nos.155/1 and 155/2. Accordingly, hissa survey tippani was drawn up on 09.01.1961. 4. Respondents further claim that on 20.06.1960 one Appashetty S/o Venkataramappa filed application seeking grant of occupancy rights in respect of 30 guntas in Sy.No.155/1. The said application was registered and on 6 enquiry, Appashetty was conferred occupancy rights to an extent of 30 guntas in Sy.No.155/1 by the Special Deputy Commissioner for abolition of Inams vide order dated 31.07.1962. Respondents therefore contend that pursuant to grant, entry was registered which is evidenced at Annexure-R5. The private respondents further specifically contend that the petitioner's predecessor in title namely Jayaramaiah had filed an application seeking occupancy rights to an extent of 4 acres 10 guntas in Sy.No.155/1 and the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams vide order dated 06.10.1962 has conferred occupancy rights only to an extent of 4 acres 10 guntas. 5. The respondents are also placing reliance on the statement of Jayaramaiah before the Special Tahsildar acknowledging that his claim was only to an extent of 4 acres 10 guntas. Respondents therefore contend that petitioner who is tracing title through Jayaramaiah cannot assert title in excess of 4 acres 10 guntas. Reliance is 7 placed on the endorsement issued by the revenue officials which are annexed at Annexures - R-10 and R-11. The respondents claim that after demise of respondent No.5's father and since there was interference by the petitioner over 30 guntas of land, respondent No.5 verified the revenue records and found that M.R.No.H4/2021-22 is certified fraudulently thereby mutating petitioner's name to the entire extent measuring 5 acres 4 guntas contrary to grant obtained by Appashetty to an extent of 30 guntas. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised two key contentions while challenging the orders passed by respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner and respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner. Firstly, he argues that the private respondents were not entitled to maintain an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Instead, they ought to have approached respondent No.4/Tahsildar for a change of katha under Section 128. Secondly, he contends that there 8 is no provision for condonation of delay under Section 136. Referring to the language of Section 136, he points out that it explicitly states, "the provisions of Chapter V are not applicable," thereby excluding the applicability of Section 51, which otherwise allows an aggrieved party to seek condonation of delay. In any event, he submits that the delay has been condoned by respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner without assigning proper reasons, rendering the order unsustainable. Additionally, he asserts that the respondents’ names could not have been mutated based on a 1962 grant. Learned Senior Counsel further brings to the Court’s attention that the petitioner has already instituted a comprehensive suit and that the principles laid down by the
Legal Reasoning
Full Bench in Smt. Jayamma vs. State of Karnataka1 are squarely applicable to the present case. Relying on the Full Bench judgment, he contends that revenue authorities, particularly under Section 136(2), should not entertain stale claims. 1 ILR 2020 Kar 1449 9 7. Challenging the reasoning adopted by the Deputy Commissioner, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Deputy Commissioner erred in directing the petitioner to pursue his remedies in the pending suit. He asserts that an appeal under Section 136(2) is maintainable only against an order passed under Section 129(4) or 129(6). Further, he argues that the provisions governing limitation under Section 51 do not apply to proceedings under Section 136. On this basis, he contends that the Assistant Commissioner lacked the jurisdiction to condone the delay. 8. Conversely, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6 to 8 refutes the petitioner’s claim. He argues that the issue of limitation was never raised during the revision proceedings under Section 136(3). Moreover, he points out that the petitioner did not file any objections to the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before the Assistant Commissioner. Consequently, having 10 waived his defense and having failed to challenge the application at the relevant stage, the petitioner is now estopped from raising these grounds under Article 227. Referring to paragraph 5 of the plaint in O.S.No. 1293/2024, he emphasizes that the petitioner has acknowledged the grant made in favour of the private respondents' ancestor. Given that the original grantee, Jayaramaiah, acquired rights over only 4 acres and 10 guntas through the said grant, any alienation beyond this extent is legally unsustainable. Therefore, he contends that the petitioner’s claim to the excess land is defective and cannot be adjudicated in mutation proceedings. In light of this, he argues that the Deputy Commissioner rightly directed the petitioner to establish his rights in the pending suit. 9. Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private respondent Nos.6 to 8 and learned AGA. 11 10. On deeper examination of the records, it is clearly evident that one Jayaramaiah S/o Munivenkatappa filed application seeking grant of occupancy rights to an extent of 4 acres 10 guntas in Sy.No.155/1. The petitioner is tracing title through the said Jayaramaiah. Similarly, one Appashetty S/o Venkataramappa also filed an application seeking grant of occupancy rights to an extent of 30 guntas in Sy.No.155/1. 11. On examining the grant certificate evidenced at Annexure-R5 and R10, it is clearly evident that Jayaramaiah was granted only 4 acres 10 guntas, while Appashetty was granted 30 guntas on the same day i.e., 20.06.1960. Annexure-R8 would clinch the claim of petitioner in excess of 4 acres 10 guntas which is an affidavit. Therefore, this Court before proceeds further deems it fit to cull out Annexure-R8. "Deposition Father's name Age : : : Jayaramaiah Munivenkatappa 28 years 12 Caste Occupation Residence : : : Vakkaligar Agriculture Kodagalahalli Sy.No. 125/1 Ext Asst. 2-20 5-00 4-10 J 155/1 4-10 8-8-0 J 52/2 0-18 (0-12-0) 2-4-0 M 60 M 65 M 91 M 59 0-04 0-12 0-06 0-04 Sy.No.125/1 (cid:1)ೇ ಜ(cid:5)ೕನು P.R.S.O (cid:8)ೆ(cid:9) ನನ(cid:10) (cid:11)ೆಸ(cid:13)ನ(cid:14)(cid:15) (cid:16)ಾ(cid:18)ೆ ಇರು(cid:18)ೆ(cid:21). ಸ.ನಂ.155(cid:1)ೇ ಜಂ(cid:27) (cid:16)ಾ(cid:18)ೆಯ(cid:14)(cid:15)ದು(cid:30) ಅದರ(cid:14)(cid:15) 4-10 ಗುಂ!ೆ ಜ(cid:5)ೕನು ಅನುಭವದ(cid:14)(cid:15)ರು(cid:18)ೆ(cid:21). 52/2(cid:1)ೇ ಜ(cid:5)ೕನು $ೈಯಪ’ (cid:8)ೆಂಪಯ(ನ ಜಂ(cid:27) (cid:16)ಾ(cid:18)ೆಯ(cid:14)(cid:15)ದು(cid:30) ನನ)ೆ 0-6 ಗುಂ!ೆ ಜ(cid:5)ೕನು ಇರು(cid:18)ೆ(cid:21). (cid:8)ೆಂಪಯ( ನನ(cid:10) *ಕ(cid:9)ಪ’(cid:1)ಾಗ$ೇಕು ಆತ.ಂದ ನನ)ೆ ಬಂ0ರು(cid:18)ೆ(cid:21). ಈ ಜ(cid:5)ೕನುಗ2)ೆ (cid:1)ಾನು ಅ3ಾ4ದ ನನ(cid:10) ಅನುಭವದ(cid:14)(cid:15)ದು(cid:30)(cid:8)ೊಂ6ರು(cid:18)ೆ(cid:21). Sy.No.60, 65, 91, 59(cid:1)ೇ ಜ(cid:5)ೕನುಗಳ8 9:ೕಮಠದ (cid:11)ೆಸ(cid:13)ನ(cid:14)(cid:15) (cid:16)ಾ(cid:18)ೆ4ದು(cid:30) (cid:1)ಾನು ಈ ಜ(cid:5)ೕನುಗಳನು(cid:10) =ಾಗುವ2 7-8 ವಷ?ಗ2ಮದ @ಾಡುB(cid:21)Cೆ(cid:30)ೕ(cid:1)ೆ. ಇದ(cid:8)ೆ(cid:9) ಎನೂ Cಾಖ3ೆಯೂ ಇF. ಇವGಗಳ(cid:14)(cid:15) ನನ(cid:10)ನು(cid:10) =ಾಗುವ2Cಾರ(cid:1)ಾH ಮುಂದುವ(cid:13)ಸ$ೇ(cid:8)ಾH Iಾ:ಥ?(cid:1)ೆ." 12. This Court also deems it fit to cull out para 5 of the plaint in O.S.No.1293/2024. This suit is instituted by the petitioner. Para 5 reads as under: 13 "5. That in a different proceeding one Appashetty was also shown to have been granted 0.30 guntas of land in Sy.No.155/1, but he was not cultivating that land at any time. He was found to be in possession and enjoyment of 0.19 guntas of land in Sy.No.157/3. Accordingly, it is recorded so in correlation register and the revenue records pertaining to the said 0.19 guntas were made over to his name vide RR No.353. Later, the revenue records of Sy.No 157/3 were made over to the name of the said Appashetty and the said Appashetty had sold his land in favour of one Govindappa through a registered sale deed dated 28/07/1966 bearing document No. 1667/1966-67. This is very clear from Karda and RR Right Hand Side entries also." 13. In light of the affidavit extracted above, along with the averments made in paragraph 5, this Court has carefully examined the proceedings before the Special Tahsildar of Inams Abolition concerning the grant of occupancy rights in favour of Jayaramaiah for Sy.No.155/1, measuring 4 acres and 10 guntas. These proceedings have attained finality, as evidenced by the signed order sheet available at Annexure-R-9. Furthermore, the grant orders 14 issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner, as reflected in Annexure-B2 dated 01.05.1961, explicitly establish that Jayaramaiah was granted occupancy rights over only 4 acres and 10 guntas. Additionally, in separate proceedings, Appashetty was independently granted 30 guntas. The grant of 30 guntas to Appashetty has been acknowledged in the proceedings. The petitioner himself has admitted to this fact in the comprehensive suit filed in O.S.No.1293/2024, as detailed in paragraph 5 of the plaint. 14. Against this backdrop, this Court must now address two key issues raised by the learned Senior Counsel. The first contention advanced is that the private respondents could not have maintained an appeal under Section 136(2) and that their proper remedy lies before respondent No.4/Tahsildar. However, this argument runs contrary to the statutory mandate under Section 128. Given the disputed mutation recorded in M.R.No.H4/2021- 22, the private respondents could not have approached 15 respondent No.4/Tahsildar under Section 128. The mutation of the petitioner’s name over the entire extent of 5 acres and 4 guntas is inconsistent with the actual grant of occupancy rights to Jayaramaiah. 15. Section 128 outlines the procedure for recording rights in immovable property, as contemplated under its provisions. However, the private respondents can seek mutation of their names only if the impugned mutation is set aside. Consequently, they were justified in approaching the Assistant Commissioner and the appellate authority under Section 136(2). Therefore, the argument that the private respondents’ remedy was limited to the Tahsildar is untenable. 16. Whether provisions of Section 5 of Limitation Act are applicable to Appeals filed under Section 136(2) of KLR Act: 16 The second issue raised by the learned Senior Counsel pertains to the Assistant Commissioner’s jurisdiction to condone the delay in light of the 1962 grant. Referring to Section 136(2), the learned Senior Counsel highlights that this provision begins with a non-obstante clause, explicitly stating that the provisions of Chapter V shall not apply to any decision or order under this chapter. Chapter V prescribes appellate remedies against original orders, with Section 51 specifically setting out the limitation period. Moreover, Section 52 expressly stipulates that the provisions of Sections 4, 5, and 12 of the Limitation Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to all appeals under this Act. Given this legal framework, it is relevant to extract Section 52, which provides as follows: " 52. Application of the Limitation Act. Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of sections 4, 5 and 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Central Act 36 of 1963) shall mutatis mutandis apply to all appeals under this Act." 17 17. The non-obstante clause in Section 136(1) merely states that the provisions of Chapter V shall not apply to any decision or order passed under Chapter XIV. This implies that orders passed under sub-sections (4) and (6) of Section 129 are not appealable under Section 49 of Chapter V. Instead, an effective appellate remedy for such orders is expressly provided under Section 136(2). 18. Furthermore, Section 52, as extracted above, explicitly states that the provisions of the Limitation Act apply to all appeals under this Act. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel that the applicability of Sections 4 and 5 of the Limitation Act is restricted solely to orders passed under Section 49 is fundamentally misconceived. Additionally, this Court considers it necessary to take cognizance of Rule 16 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, which reads as follows: "16. Contents of appeal, etc :- Every such appeal, petition applications shall 18 (a) be either typewritten or written in ink in clearly legible hand; (b) specify the name, fathers name and postal address of the appellant or applicant and of the respondent or opponent, as the case may be; (c) contain a brief statement of the facts of the case; (d) state the provisions of the substantive law under which it is presented; (e) clearly state the grounds of appeal, petition or application and the relief claimed; (f) if filed, after the expiry of the period of limitation, state the reasons for the delay: Provided that where the appellant, petitioner or applicant wants the delay to be condoned, he shall file a separate application along with an affidavit explaining the circumstances relied upon, failing which the appeal, petition or application shall be dismissed in limine. Every appeal, petition or application shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the order in respect of which the appeal, petition or application has been made and also by as many true copies of the appeal memo, petition or application as there are respondents or opponents. Provided further that every appeal, petition or application made to the Tribunal shall be accompanied by two true copies of such appeal, petition or application and by one certified copy and two true copies of the order in respect of which the appeal, petition or application has been made in addition to as many true copies of such order 19 and appeal, petition or application as there are respondents or opponents." 19. Rule 16(f) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, explicitly provides that if an appeal is filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is maintainable. However, Rule 16 mandates that such an application must be filed independently, and sufficient reasons for the delay must be assigned. A plain and conjoint reading of Sections 51 and 52 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, along with Rule 16, makes it evident that the provisions of the Limitation Act are applicable to appeals filed under Section 136(2). This interpretation supports the view that an aggrieved party has the right to seek condonation of delay by filing an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act when challenging an order passed under Section 129 through an appeal under Section 136(2). Consequently, the argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel, 20 suggesting that the provisions of the Limitation Act, particularly Sections 4 and 5, apply exclusively to orders passed under Section 49, is misconceived. Such a contention stands in direct contradiction to the statutory provisions under Sections 51 and 52 read with Rule 16. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in this argument and is not inclined to accept the same. 20. Learned Senior Counsel has also contended that the principles laid down in Jayamma (supra) are squarely applicable to the present case. However, this Court is unable to accept that contention. The petitioner's predecessor-in-title, namely Jayaramaiah, was granted occupancy rights only to an extent of 4 acres and 10 guntas, as per the order dated 06.10.1962. The petitioner, relying on title deeds derived from previous purchasers, is asserting ownership over land exceeding this extent. It is well settled that any claim beyond the grant of occupancy rights must be substantiated through proper legal 21 proceedings. Therefore, in accordance with the principles laid down by the Full Bench in Jayamma, the burden lies upon the petitioner to establish his title, right, and possession over the excess land. This issue cannot be adjudicated in mutation proceedings under Sections 128 and 129 but must be determined by a competent civil court. Notably, the petitioner has already initiated such proceedings by filing a comprehensive civil suit. Hence, the order of the Assistant Commissioner, directing the petitioner to substantiate his title claim through civil litigation rather than mutation proceedings, is in strict conformity with the statutory framework provided under Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. 21. Additionally, this Court deems it necessary to examine the discretion exercised by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner while entertaining appeals and revisions under Section 136. A 22 party acquiring title through a registered sale deed cannot be deprived of their rights merely because the revenue authorities have failed to take cognizance of the document and reflect the rightful owner’s name in the Record of Rights (RTC). The sale deed is a conclusive proof of ownership and the failure of revenue authorities to update records accordingly does not diminish the legal standing of such transactions. It is also imperative to note that under the existing legal framework, a mandatory duty is cast upon the revenue authorities to incorporate changes in column 9 of RTC upon receiving intimation from the Sub-Registrar. Therefore, inordinate delay in initiating mutation proceedings should not be treated as an absolute bar, especially when ownership is evidenced through legally valid and registered documents. 22. In revenue proceedings concerning mutations under Sections 128 and 129, excessive emphasis on 23 procedural delays is unwarranted. Once title is lawfully acquired under a registered sale deed, such ownership cannot be negated solely due to delays in updating revenue records. This Court has consistently held that RTC entries do not constitute title documents, and mere non-reflection of a party’s name in the revenue records does not divest them of ownership rights. Hence, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, while exercising their discretion, must prioritize legally registered documents over technical objections concerning delay. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner was justified in condoning the delay in the present case, particularly in light of the grant of 30 guntas by the Special Deputy Commissioner under the Inams Abolition proceedings. The order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, as affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, is legally sound and does not suffer from any jurisdictional or procedural infirmity. 24 23. Writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA