Writ Petition No. 7288 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:22556 WP No. 7288 of 2025 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 7288 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. NAIDU K.V. S/O K.C. NAIDU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.13, 4TH CROSS GOWDARA COLONY 1ST MAIN ROAD, RMV 2ND STAGE DOLLARS COLONY BENGALURU - 560 094. (BY SRI. P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. NANJA REDDY, ADVOCATE AND: …PETITIONER Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION, KANDHAYA BHAVANA, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009. 3. SPECIAL TAHASILDHARA, YELAHANKA TALUK, YELAHANKA, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:22556 WP No. 7288 of 2025 HC-KAR BENGALURU - 560 064.
Legal Reasoning
4. SRI. FEIROZE P IRANI S/O LATE PARVEZ IRANI AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT NO.1-13-265/3, NEAR POST OFFICE, PHATENAGAR, MEDAK DISTRICT, TELENGANA - 502 110. (BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. DHYANCHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MANU K., ADVOCATE FOR R4) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE MUTATION ORDER DATED 26.05.2022 BEARING NO.RRT/Y/CR/29/2022-23 (ANNEXURE-H) PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND THE ORDER DATED 16.01.2024 BEARING (ANNEXURE-N) PASSED BY THE NO.R.A.(YLK)631/2022 RESPONDENT NO.2 AND THE ORDER DATED 24.02.2025 BEARING NO.R.P.NO.155/2024 (ANNEXURE-P) PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT AS THE SAME ARE ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT AND RULES MADE THEREUNDER AND ALSO IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 300A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY HAS BEEN INFRINGED. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, E.S. INDIRESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:22556 WP No. 7288 of 2025 HC-KAR CAV ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the Mutation
Decision
Order dated 26.05.2022 bearing No.RRT/Y/CR/29/2022-23 (Annexure-H) passed by the respondent No.3, order dated 16.01.2024 in R.A(YKL) 631/2022 (Annexure-N) passed by respondent No.2, and order dated 24.02.2025 in R.P.No.155 of 2024 (Annexure- P) passed by respondent No.1 as illegal, inter-alia sought for a direction to the respondents to transfer khata in favour of the petitioner in respect of subject land. 2. Relevant facts for the adjudication of this writ petition are that, the petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of the land bearing Sy.No.102/3, measuring 04 acres, 15 guntas of Kogilu Village, Yalahanka Taluk. It is further stated in the writ petition that, one Smt. Mehra Mehta had executed General Power Attorney in favour of petitioner on 10.02.1998 (Annexure-A) to deal with the subject land in question. It is also stated that, petitioner being General Power Attorney holder, represented before - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:22556 WP No. 7288 of 2025 HC-KAR the Land Tribunal and the Land Tribunal by order dated 21.06.2003 (Annexure-B), passed an order by forfeiting the land of the executant (Smt. Mehra Mehta) except land bearing Sy.No.102/P-1 of Kogilu village. It is further stated that, the khata of the schedule land was transferred in MR No.7 of 2003-04 (Annexure-C) pursuant to the order of Land Tribunal. It is also stated that, on 07.03.2007, the General Power Attorney holder-petitioner has sold the property in favour of one Sri. K.C. Naidu, as per Annexure- D. Therefore, it is stated that, Sri. K. C. Naidu, became owner of the land in question. The said K. C. Naidu has filed appeal in RA(BNA)No. 253 of 2011-12 before the respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner, challenging the MR No.07/2003-04 and the respondent No.2 by order dated 30.06.2014, allowed the appeal and directed the respondent No.3-Thasildar to transfer the revenue records in favour of the petitioner herein. In the meanwhile, father of the petitioner-K.C.Naidu died on 09.03.2018 leaving behind the petitioner. It is further stated in the petition - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:22556 WP No. 7288 of 2025 HC-KAR that, the revenue authorities have effected phodi in respect of subject land. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.3, vide Annexure-G, dated 01.10.2021 rejected the application with regard to transfer of khata stating that khata cannot be transferred based on the Will, said to have been executed by Smt. Mehra Mehta in favour of respondent No.4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that, the respondent No.3, ought to have transferred mutation in favour of the petitioner, however, Thasildar, illegally, entered the name of the respondent No.4 in MR No.H-26 dated 26.05.2022 (Annexure-H). It is the case of the petitioner that, respondent No.4 is not a legal heir of Smt. Mehra Mehta and further the petitioner has filed suit in OS No. 1192 of 2022 seeking permanent injunction against the defendants therein and copy of the interim order dated 15.07.2023 is produced at Annexure-M. Criminal cases are pending consideration before the competent court between the parties in respect of subject land. The respondent No.2- Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 16.01.2024 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:22556 WP No. 7288 of 2025 HC-KAR (Annexure-N) has rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner in RA (YLK) No.631 of 2022 wherein, challenge was made to MR No.H-26/2021-22. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred RP No. 155 of 2024 before the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner and the said Revision Petition came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has presented this writ petition. 4. I have heard Sri. P. S Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. P.N. Nanja Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Smt. Navya Shekhar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent -State and Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Manu K, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. 5. Sri. P. S. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, both the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have committed an error in passing the impugned orders without considering the fact that the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:22556 WP No. 7288 of 2025 HC-KAR respondent No.3, has rejected the claim of the respondent No.4 on the earlier occasion. The finding recorded by the respondent No.1, is solely based on the pendency of suit in OS No. 1192 of 2022 and also the executant of General power Attorney died on 16.05.1998. He further contended that, as on the date of disputed Will dated 24.01.1980, there was no property available for executing the Will and the said aspect of the matter was ignored by the respondent-authorities. It is also contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that, the criminal action launched against the petitioner as reflected in Crime No.198 of 2022 is stayed by this Court in the Criminal Revision Petition and therefore, he contended that, the registered Sale Deed dated 07.03.2007 executed by Smt. Mehra Mehta has become final and as the same has not been challenged by anybody including the respondent No.4 herein and therefore, the learned Senior Counsel contended that the finding recorded by the respondent authorities requires to be interfered with in this Writ Petition. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:22556 WP No. 7288 of 2025 HC-KAR 6. Per contra, Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior counsel for the respondent No.4 invited the attention of the court to the statement of objections and contended that, the owner of the land in question Smt. Mehra Mehta had executed the Will dated 21.04.1980 in favour of the respondent No.4, bequeathing the land in question as per Annexure-R1. He further contended that, the executant of the registered Sale Deed (Annexure-D) by the General Power Attorney Holder-K.V. Naidu, in favour of the petitioner herein is on 07.03.2007, however, Smt. Mehra Mehta died on 16.05.1998 and therefore, the finding recorded by the respondent-authorities that the registered Sale Deed produced at Annexure-D cannot be considered as the General power attorney holder had executed the registered Sale Deed in favour of petitioner after the death of the executant of the General power attorney-Smt. Mehra Mehta accordingly, sought for interference of this court. He also refers to the finding recorded by the Trial Court in OS No. 1192 of 2022 and the order dated 03.03.2025 in MA - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:22556 WP No. 7288 of 2025 HC-KAR No.65 of 2024 on the file of VII Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully consider the finding recorded by the respondent-authorities. The petitioner is claiming right in respect of land in question as per the registered Sale Deed dated 07.03.2007 said to have been executed by the General Power Attorney holder of the owner of the land in question (Smt. Mehra Mehta). Undisputedly Smt.Mehra Mehta was the owner of the land in question and has executed the General Power Attorney dated 10.02.1998 (Annexure-A) in favour of father of the petitioner-K.C. Naidu to deal with the land in question. It is also forthcoming from the writ papers that Smt. Mehra Mehta died on 16.05.1998 and therefore, the General power Attorney said to have been executed by Smt. Mehra Mehta as per Annexure-A, has no legal sanctity in law after the death of Smt. Mehra Mehta and therefore, I am of the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:22556 WP No. 7288 of 2025 HC-KAR opinion that, the finding recorded by the respondent- authorities is just and proper. Be that as it may, suit in OS No.1192 of 2022 is pending consideration before the Civil Court which requires to be concluded. As to crystallising the rights of the parties, In that view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in orders passed by the respondent- authorities. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. JUDGE SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 89