Writ Petition No. 7571 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16940 WP No. 7571 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 7571 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI.K.CHANDRA., S/O LATE KOTHANDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT No.73, GIRIYAVEPALYA, NAZARBAD MOHALLA, MYSURU-570029. (BY SRI. MUNIYAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560 001. 2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU - 570 005. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MYSURU SUB-DIVISION, OLD D.C. OFFICE MYSURU, MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 005. 4 . THE COMMISSIONER, MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MUDA), J.L.B. ROAD, MYSURU 570 005, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16940 WP No. 7571 of 2025 5 . SRI. KESHAVAMURTHY S/O. LATE SHIVA CHIKKAIAH, MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.527, HULIYAMMA DEVASTHANA ROAD, KYATHAMARANAHALLI, MYSURU 570 019. 6 . SRI. MAHADEVASWAMY S, S/O. LATE SHIVACHIKKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT. NO.1527, HULIYAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, KYATHAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE, MYSURU - 570 019. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DATED:19.02.2025 IN R.P.No.236/2024 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A, ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: 17.03.2025, COMING ON CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA 1. Kothandaiah, the father of the petitioner and the son CAV ORDER
Legal Reasoning
of Chinna Bhovi, challenged an endorsement dated 01.06.2010 issued by the Tahasildar by which the Tahasildar stated that it would not be possible for him to set aside an order of mutation made vide I.H.R. No.7/1982-83 whereby the revenue entries - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16940 WP No. 7571 of 2025 had been mutated in favour of Shivachikkaiah (son of Karia) and he would have to approach the Assistant Commissioner by filing an appeal. 2. Accordingly, Kothandaiah preferred an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act') before the Assistant Commissioner, and the Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 27.08.2012 set aside the order of mutation since the 2nd respondent therein i.e., Shiva Chikkaiah had not appeared before him and objected to the same. The Assistant Commissioner remanded the matter to the Tahasildar to conduct a fresh enquiry and pass an order on merits. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, in the impugned order, has recorded a finding that pursuant to this order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 27.08.2012, the Tahasildar had in fact passed on order dated 31.07.2015 whereby he held that the continuance of the entry in favour of Keshavchandra son of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16940 WP No. 7571 of 2025 Shivachikkaiah would be incorrect since the lands had already been acquired by MUDA and it would be appropriate to secure a firm opinion from the MUDA and register the Khata in favour of MUDA. The findings recorded by the Deputy Commissioner is extracted for the sake of convenience:- " 20. vÀºÀ¹Ã¯ÁÝgÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 31.7.2015 gÀAzÀÄ G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁj ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 27.8.2012 gÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß C£ÀĸÀj¹ ¥ÀÅ£Àgï ¥Àj²Ã°¹ DzÉñÀ ªÀiÁrzÀÝgÀÆ, ªÀÄvÉÛà vÀºÀ¹Ã¯ÁÝgÀgÀÄ G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁj gÀªÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 27.8.2012 gÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß G¯ÉèÃT¹ «ZÁgÀuÉ £Àqɹ ¸ÀASÉå DgïDgïn (ªÀÄ.«)1275/2022-23 ¢£ÁAPÀ 17.10.2023 gÀAzÀÄ DzÉò¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. 21. MªÉÄä DzÉñÀªÁzÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ªÀÄvÉÛà CzÉà ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ DzÉñÀ ºÉÆgÀr¸À®Ä PÁ£ÀƤ£À°è CªÀPÁ±À«®è¢zÀÝgÀÆ, vÀºÀ¹Ã¯ÁÝgÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀ ªÁå¦Û «ÄÃj DzÉò¹gÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß UÀªÀĤ¹zÉ. CzÀ®èzÉÃ, ¢£ÁAPÀ 17.10.2023 gÀ DzÉñÀzÀ°ègÀĪÀ 1£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ²ªÀaPÀÌAiÀÄå ¢£ÁAPÀ 8.8.2016 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀgÁVzÀÝgÀÆ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¥ÀPÀëPÁgÀgÀ£ÁßV vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ DzÉò¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¤AiÀĪÀĨÁ»gÀªÁVzÉ." - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16940 WP No. 7571 of 2025 4. The Deputy Commissioner, in the impugned order has also recorded that notwithstanding the said order dated 31.07.2015 passed by the Tahasildar pursuant to the said order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 27.08.2012, the Tahasildar has once again proceeded to pass an order on 17.10.2023 whereby he has come to the conclusion that in Sy.No.155 (which measured 04 acres 36 guntas) an entry was required to be made in the RTC to the effect an extent of 02 acres 18 guntas had been acquired by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (for short, ‘the MUDA’) and for the remaining 02 acres 18 guntas, the name of Girija Bhovi was required to be entered in the RTC and entry in Column No.12 should also be made as R.R. No.299. 5. The Tahasildar, in this order, has recorded a finding that as per I.H.R. No.7/1982-83, in column No.9, there was an entry as Kempa son of Kariya. He also observed that there was no record available - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16940 WP No. 7571 of 2025 regarding I.H.R. No.7/1982-83 and the record room had indicated that those orders were unavailable. The Tahasildar proceeded to draw an inference that the entry of ‘Kempa son of Karia’ was made by inadvertence and therefore, it was required to be deleted. 6. It may be pertinent to state here that the Deputy Commissioner, in the impugned order, has observed that Shivachikkaiah who had been arrayed as the 1st respondent had passed away on 08.08.2016 and yet his legal representatives were not brought on record. 7. It may also be pertinent to state here that the Tahasildar has basically passed this order on 17.10.2023 i.e., nearly 11 years after the order of remand passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 27.08.2012. 8. Being aggrieved by this order, the 5th respondent- Keshavamurthy i.e., the legal representative of Shiva - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16940 WP No. 7571 of 2025 Chikkaiah (who was the 1st respondent before the Assistant Commissioner) preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner in R.A. No.128 of 2024. 9. Another appeal was also preferred by Mahadeva M. son of Manchaiah in R.A. No.170/2024. 10. The Assistant Commissioner, clubbed both the appeals and disposed of the appeals by holding that in Sy.No.155, out of the total extent of 04 acres 36 guntas, an extent of 02 acres 18 guntas had been acquired and out of the remaining extent of 02 acres 18 guntas, an extent of 01 acre 37 guntas, the name of the “MUDA” was to be entered since compensation has been paid in respect of this 01 acre 37 guntas as per the order of the MUDA dated 21.10.2023 and in respect of the remaining extent of land, it was required to be indicated as “revenue layout” since houses had been constructed on revenue layout. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16940 WP No. 7571 of 2025 11. The Assistant Commissioner also recorded a finding that as per the Official Memorandum of the Commissioner of MUDA dated 21.10.2023, the MUDA had formed layout and roads and it had utilized the extent of 01 acre 37 guntas without acquiring the said land in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987. He also recorded that as compensation, alternative land in the form of sites measuring 22,640 sq.ft. had also been granted. 12. Being aggrieved by this order of the Assistant Commissioner, Keshavamurthy son of Shiva Chikkaiah i.e., the 5th respondent preferred a revision. The Deputy Commissioner after hearing has partly allowed the revision and has set aside the order of the Tahasildar dated 17.10.2023 by which he had directed the name of MUDA to be entered in the RTC in respect of the extent of 02 acres 18 guntas and the remaining extent of 02 acres 18 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16940 WP No. 7571 of 2025 guntas, the name of Girija Bhovi son of Bangle Chinna Bhovi should be entered. 13. The Deputy Commissioner has further come to the conclusion that the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 04.09.2024, by which he had directed the name of MUDA to be entered to the extent of 02 acres 18 guntas (by acquisition) and 01 acre 37 guntas (as having been utilised without acquisition) and for the remaining 21 guntas, an entry that a revenue layout exists, was required to be implemented. 14. The Deputy Commissioner has also recorded that in light of the order of the Tahasildar being set aside, the Revision petitioner i.e., Keshavamurthy could approach the appropriate authority for claiming compensation. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16940 WP No. 7571 of 2025 15. Being aggrieved by this said order of the Deputy Commissioner, K. Chandra son of Late Kothandaiah, is before this Court. 16. As already observed above, the Assistant Commissioner has recorded a finding that out of 04 acres 36 guntas in Sy.No.155, an extent of 02 acres 18 guntas was acquired by the MUDA by consent, an extent of 01 acre 37 guntas had been utilised by MUDA without acquisition and in respect of the remaining 0-21 guntas, a revenue layout had been formed. 17. The Deputy Commissioner has affirmed this finding. The Deputy Commissioner has also noticed that MUDA had acquired 02 acres 18 guntas by consent and had paid the compensation to Shiva Chikkaiah and the revision petitioner had also been given alternative incentive sites and remaining extent of 02 acre 18 guntas was standing in the name of Shiva Chikkaiah. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:16940 WP No. 7571 of 2025 18. The Deputy Commissioner has also affirmed the finding that out of the remaining extent of 02 acres 18 guntas, 01 acre 37 guntas had been utilized by MUDA without acquiring it. 19. Thus, the fact that, out of the extent of 04 acres 36 guntas, 02 acres 18 guntas + 01 acre 37 guntas i.e., a total of 4 acre 15 guntas was utilized by MUDA, cannot be in dispute. 20. The Deputy Commissioner also noticed that pursuant to the order of the Assistant Commissioner on 27.08.2012, the Tahasildar had passed an order on 31.07.2015 directing the name of Shiva Chikkaiah should not have been continued and the name of MUDA was required to be entered as the lands had been acquired and before that entry is made, a specific opinion of the MUDA was required to be secured. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:16940 WP No. 7571 of 2025 21. The Deputy Commissioner has noticed that without noticing this order dated 31.07.2015, the Tahasildar had basically, passed another order on 17.10.2023 as if he was considering the claim afresh pursuant to the order of remand dated 27.08.2012. 22. The Deputy Commissioner has noticed that once the Tahasildar had passed an order on 31.07.2015 pursuant to the order of the remand of the Assistant Commissioner dated 27.08.2012, the Tahasildar had no jurisdiction to pass a second and a contrary order dated 17.10.2023 directing the name of Giriya Bhovi son of Bangle Chinnabhovi to be entered in respect of 02 acres 18 guntas which had not been acquired. 23. In my view, this approach of the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant commissioner cannot be found fault with. 24. It is to be stated here that the name of Shivachikkaiah was entered in the revenue records in - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:16940 WP No. 7571 of 2025 respect of Sy.No.155 measuring 04 acres 36 guntas vide IHC No.7/1982-83 and on this basis when 02 acres 18 guntas in Sy.No.155 had been acquired by MUDA and compensation was also paid in respect of this land to Shiva Chikkaiah, it is obvious that the entries in respect of the remaining land would have to be continued in the name of Shiva Chikkaiah. 25. In fact, as per the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the Tahasildar had passed an order on 31.07.2015 that the entries in the RTC would have to be entered in the name of MUDA as the lands had been acquired after securing an opinion from MUDA. 26. The Deputy Commissioner has also concluded that Tahasildar had ignored this order dated 31.07.2015 and had proceeded to decide the claim afresh and had wrongly come to the conclusion that the name of Giriya Bhovi should be entered in the revenue records. He has recorded a finding that the - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:16940 WP No. 7571 of 2025 Tahasildar had no jurisdiction to pass the order on 17.10.2023 since the Tahasildar had acted on the order of remand dated 27.08.2012 and had passed an order on 31.07.2015 itself. In this light of this finding, no infirmity can be found in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, which requires inference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 27. The Deputy Commissioner has also noticed that the petitioner herein had filed O.S. No.48 of 2002 seeking for a decree of injunction which was amended and a decree for declaration had also been sought but the same was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit as MUDA had not been made a party. He has also noticed that subsequently, the petitioner had filed O.S. No.891 of 2005 seeking for a declaration, but the said suit was dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction by the Trial Court and this order was also confirmed in M.A. No.48 of 2008. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:16940 WP No. 7571 of 2025 These observations would therefore indicate that the claim of the petitioner for title before the Civil Courts have not been successful. 28. It must also be kept in mind that the Deputy Commissioner has noticed that both the parties had agreed that MUDA has also paid compensation in respect of 02 acres 18 guntas and incentive sites to Shivachikkaiah, the father of the 5threspondent and it is also observed that the Tahasildar had passed the order on 17.10.2023 despite the fact that Shivachikkaiah who was the respondent before the Tahasildar had passed away on 08.08.2016 and no steps had been taken to bring his legal representatives on record. 29. In my view, therefore, in the light of the above facts, the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his revisional powers cannot be found fault with. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:16940 WP No. 7571 of 2025 30. The learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that the claim regarding the compensation was the subject matter of W.P. No.23124 of 20241 in which an interim order has been granted and therefore, the order of the Deputy Commissioner cannot be sustained. 31. It is to be stated here that the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner were only concerned with the legality of the entries in the Revenue records and they have found that the Tahasildar had no jurisdiction to pass an order on 17.10.2023 when the Tahasildar had already passed an order on 31.07.2015. It is obvious that any decision rendered on the revenue entries would not have a bearing on the question of compensation and the same would have to be adjudicated separately in a manner known to law. 1 Order dated 28.08.2024 in WP No.23124 of 2024 (Keshavamurthy and others vs. State of Karnataka and others); - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:16940 WP No. 7571 of 2025 32. Since, the Deputy Commissioner has only decided on the correctness of the revenue entries, the grant of interim order in W.P. No.23124 of 2024 or its pendency would not have any bearing on the issues involved in this petition.
Decision
33. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 34. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 155