Writ Petition No. 10441 of 2020 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:20646 WP No. 10441 of 2020 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.10441 OF 2020 (LR) BETWEEN: K. N. NARAYANA REDDY SINCE DECEASED, REP. BY LR: SRI. N. UMESH S/O. LATE K. N. NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO. 5, NEAR ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLE, KUMBENA AGRAHARA, KADUGODI POST, BENGALURU - 560 066. (BY SRI. M.J. ALVA, ADVOCATE) AND: Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 1. THE LAND TRIBUNAL HOSAKOTE TALUK HOSAKOTE - 562 114. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION KANDHAYA BHAVAN K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU -560 009. 3. THE TAHASILDAR BANGALORE EAST TALUK K.R. PURAM BENGALURU - 560 036. …PETITIONER - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:20646 WP No. 10441 of 2020 HC-KAR
Legal Reasoning
4. SRI. Y.A. SOMASUNDAR S/O LATE Y. APPAJI AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/AT NO.1605, 18TH MAIN ROAD JAYANAGAR 4TH 'T' BLOCK BENGALURU - 560 041. 5. SRI. Y.A. GANGADHAR S/O LATE APPAJI AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT NO.189, BHEL LAYOUT RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 098. 6. SRI. Y. A. MANJUNATH S/O LATE APPAJI AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/AT NO.27, 10TH CROSS 'A' CROSS, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BEML 5TH STAGE BENGALURU - 560 098. 7. SRI. RAVI KUMAR N. S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT NO.114/2, SEEGEHALLI VILLAGE VIRGO NAGAR POST BENGALURU - 560 049. 8. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. (BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 & R8; SRI. B.K SANJAY, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R7) …RESPONDENTS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20646 WP No. 10441 of 2020 HC-KAR THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.08.1981 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1/LAND TRIBUNAL , HOSAKOTE TALUK, HOSAKOTE, VIDE ANNEXURE-A. 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 CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH) 1. In this Writ Petition, petitioner is assailing the order dated 24.08.1981 passed by the respondent - Land Tribunal, Hosakote in LRF(B)1796/1974-75 (Annexure-A). 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the land bearing Sy.No.69 (new Sy.No.69/1) measuring 1 acre 32 guntas situate at Dommasandra Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk is in possession and enjoyment by the petitioner as a tenant and as such, the petitioner has filed an application in Form No.7 seeking occupancy right in respect of the subject - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:20646 WP No. 10441 of 2020 HC-KAR land. It is also stated that the petitioner was cultivating the land in question as a tenant under the jodidar namely late Y. Thimmaiah and Y. Appaji and others. It is stated in the petition that, based on Form No.7 filed by the petitioner herein, the Land Tribunal initiated proceedings in LRF(B)1796/1974-75. After a detailed enquiry in respect of the land in question, the Land Tribunal, by order dated 24.08.1981, granted occupancy right in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.69 to an extent of 1 acre 32 guntas and in Sy.No.64 to an extent of 6 guntas of Dommasandra Village (Annexure-B). Pursuant to the issuance of the occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal as per Annexure- B, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the land in question and accordingly, has produced the RTC extracts at Annexure-C series and D. It is also stated that respondent Nos.4 to 6 herein claim to be the legal heirs of jodidars Y. Thimmaiah and Y. Appaji, and with a malafide intention, have got mutation entry dated 15.06.2020 in their favour as per Annexure-E to the Writ Petition. The petitioner came to know about the change of entry as per Annexure-E and Annexure-H, dated 21.03.2020, resulting in passing one more order dated 24.08.1981 by the Land Tribunal (Annexure-B) without hearing - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:20646 WP No. 10441 of 2020 HC-KAR the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has presented this writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 4. Sri. Venkatarami Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, the respondent - Land Tribunal has erroneously passed the order at Annexure-A which is in written form and while passing the order at Annexure-A, the petitioner has not been heard in the matter and accordingly, the petitioner submits that the private respondents have taken the order at Annexure-A, at the back of the petitioner and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 5. Per contra, Sri. B. K. Sanjay, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 7 contended that, Annexure-B produced by the petitioner is a concocted document and further the order dated 24.08.1981 (Annexure-A) provides for rejection of the claim made by the petitioner herein. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 to 7 by referring to the averments made in the objection statement - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:20646 WP No. 10441 of 2020 HC-KAR that the proceedings with regard to change of mutation was challenged before the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub Division, Bengaluru in R.R.T.(BE)929/2018-19 which was allowed vide Order dated 21.01.2019 as per Annexure-R7 and the same was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District in the appeal filed by the petitioner in R.P.No.78/2019 as per Annexure-R8, by order dated 07.02.2020. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition by this Court, stating that the Land Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim made by the petitioner and therefore the petitioner has no authority under law to challenge the order passed by the Land Tribunal at Annexure-A. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted the original records from the Land Tribunal - respondent No.1. 7. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully considered the pleadings on record and perused the original records submitted by learned Additional Government Advocate. 8. On careful examination of the original records, it is forthcoming that, the land bearing Sy.No.69 belongs to the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:20646 WP No. 10441 of 2020 HC-KAR family of one Y.Thammaiah and the petitioner herein has filed Form No.7 seeking occupancy right in respect of 2 acres 4 guntas of land in Sy.No.69 of Dommasandra Village and the Land Tribunal as per Order dated 24.08.1981, granted occupancy right in favour of the petitioner herein - K.N. Narayana Reddy to an extent of 1 acre 32 guntas out of 2 acres 4 guntas in Sy.No.69, so also, the Land Tribunal granted 6 guntas of land out of 10 guntas in land bearing Sy.No.64 (Annexure-B). The original order dated 24.08.1981 produced as
Decision
Annexure-B in the Writ Petition is found in the original records. It is also forthcoming from the RTC extracts produced as Annexure-'C series and D' that the RTC extract stands in the name of the petitioner in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.69 to an extent of 1 acre 32 guntas. It is also to be noted as per Annexure-E in which the order of mutation has been passed by the respondent - authorities wherein the name of the petitioner is shown to an extent of 1 acre 32 guntas in Sy.No.69. In the said mutation register, the grant of land by the Land Tribunal is reflected thereunder. However, perusal of the mutation register at Annexure-H would indicate that the name of the private respondents herein shown in the Cultivators/owner of the land - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:20646 WP No. 10441 of 2020 HC-KAR in question to an extent of 1 acre 32 guntas. It is also forthcoming from the writ papers that the private respondents herein have preferred proceedings under Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 before the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Sub-Division in R.R.T.(BE) 929/2018-19. In the said proceedings, the respondent No.2, by order dated 21.01.2019 (Annexure-R7), directed the respondent - Tahsildar to delete the name of K.N. Narayana Reddy (petitioner herein) and to enter the name of private respondents herein. It is pertinent to mention here that, petitioner herein is not a party to the said proceedings and the said order has been passed behind the back of the petitioner. The said order dated 21.01.2019 at Annexure-R7 was questioned before the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District in R.P.No.78/2019 by the petitioner herein and the said Revision Petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 07.02.2020 (Annexure-R8). It is to be noted that, the change of entry in the mutation by the respondent - authority by deleting the name of the petitioner has been made without considering the grant made in favour of the petitioner as per Annexure-B. That apart, on careful examination of the original - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:20646 WP No. 10441 of 2020 HC-KAR records would indicate that the Tribunal has passed the order dated 24.08.1981 (Annexure-A) and the said order is handwritten and do not find the signatures of the Members of the Tribunal. It is pertinent to mention here that, for the reasons best known to the respondent - authorities, order sheet of the proceedings is missing from the records submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate. 9. It is also forthcoming from the writ papers that the petitioner herein has filed O.S.No.1149/2015 before the Principal Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, seeking relief of declaration that the plaintiff therein / petitioner herein is the absolute owner of the schedule property and the Trial Court has returned the plaint to the plaintiff to file before the competent Court having pecuniary jurisdiction and thereafter, it appears that, no civil proceedings are pending consideration between the parties. 10. In that view of the matter, perusal of the original order dated 24.08.1981 (Annexure-B) would indicate that, therein it is discussed that the petitioner has filed Form No.7 seeking occupancy right and the respondent No.1, after considering the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:20646 WP No. 10441 of 2020 HC-KAR material on record, granted occupancy right in favour of the petitioner. It is also to be noted that the RTC extract as per Annexure-C series and D, shows the name of petitioner herein. It is evident from the mutation register at Annexure-E wherein the grant made by respondent No.1 - Land Tribunal is reflected and therefore, I am of the view, the impugned order passed at Annexure-A is required to be set aside in view of the observation made above. 11. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) Order dated 24.08.1981 passed by respondent No.1 in LRF(B)1796/1974-75 at Annexure-A is hereby quashed. (iii) No order as to costs. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 73