Writ Petition No. 11621 of 2020 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5342 WP No. 11621 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 11621 OF 2020 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT AMMAYAMMA W/O LATE G. MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 2. SRI. MUNIRAJU S/O LATE CHIKKAGULLAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, BOTH RESIDING AT: MARASURU VILLAGE AND POST, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT 566 106. (BY SRI. K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ARNAV A BAGALWADI.,ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE- 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION BENGALURU 560 001. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5342 WP No. 11621 of 2020 3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (TASK FORCE) PREVENTION OF UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION CELL, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU 560 009. 4. THE TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU 562 106.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SMT. B P RADHA, AGA) …RESPONDENTS THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.08.2019 MADE BY THE PETITIONERS, A COPY OF WHICH IS HEREIN PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F FORTHWITH AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.12.2019 MADE BY THE PETITIONERS, A COPY OF WHICH IS HEREIN PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-G FORTHWITH AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER In the captioned petition, petitioners are seeking a direction against respondents to consider their - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5342 WP No. 11621 of 2020 representations dated 29.8.2019 and 20.12.2019 as per Annexures-F and G. 2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned AGA appearing for respondents and learned Senior Counsel appearing for the impleading applicant in I.A.No.1/2024. 3. The facts leading to the case are as under: The subject-matter of this petition is the agricultural land bearing Survey No.338/A. Petitioners' filed an application in Form No.53 asserting that they are in unauthorized occupation and cultivation of petition land. The Committee recommended to regularize the petitioner's unauthorized occupation. However, the jurisdictional Tahsildar failed to issue the saguvali chit. By then, it appears respondent No.2 issued a notification dated 14.6.2007 auctioning the land in question under Rule 12(2) of Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969. Petitioners challenged the auction by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.53844/2013 and W.P.No.53974/2013. The Co- - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5342 WP No. 11621 of 2020 Ordinate Bench declined to entertain the petitioners' prayer and dismissed the petitions vide order dated 14.1.2016. Petitioners assailed the said order in W.A.No.5087/2016. 4. The Division Bench though declined to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioners, however, in the course of the order, having noticed that the impleading applicant who is the successful bidder had failed to deposit 75% of the bid amount, was of the view that even auction has to go. The impleading applicant assailing the order passed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.5087/2016 approached the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Apex Court however confirming the findings rendered by the Division Bench in W.A. No.5087/2016 dismissed the civil appeal filed in Appeal No.7065/2023 vide judgment dated 30.10.2023. The review petition filed by the impleading applicant is also dismissed vide order dated 14.5.2024. 4. Now in the second round of litigation, petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5342 WP No. 11621 of 2020 Court on the ground that petition land was admittedly the ancestral property of the petitioners and on account of ill advice, they filed an application in Form No.53 seeking regularization. Therefore, petitioners assert that earlier rejection of their claim will not operate as res judicata as they have got pre-existing right in petition property, admittedly being an ancestral property. Reliance is placed on the revenue records to substantiate that petitioners have got legal right to seek directions at the hands of this Court. 5. Per contra, the State has filed detailed objections asserting that petition land is a Akharkand Kharab land and at no point of time, this land was a patta land. The State has also taken a contention that this land was never notified as a pada land. 6. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and impleading applicant and the learned AGA, the following points would arise for consideration: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5342 WP No. 11621 of 2020 "(1) Whether the impleading applicant is necessary party to the present petition? (2) Whether petitioners have got legal right to seek directions at the hands of this Court? FINDINGS ON POINT No.1: 7. This issue may not detain this Court long in the light of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7065/2023. The order passed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.5087/2016 thereby declining the rights of the impleading applicant who was an auction purchaser which is confirmed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7065/2023 gives a closure to the impleading applicant's rights, if any, in the petition land. The Apex Court while affirming the findings of the Division Bench has held that the impleading applicant failed to deposit the balance amount of 75% of the bid amount in terms of Clause 11 of the terms and conditions contained in the Public Auction Notice dated 14.06.2007. Though a demand notice by way of communication was served on the impleading applicant vide memo dated 3.10.2013, on - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5342 WP No. 11621 of 2020 account of non-deposit, the right of the impleading applicant as an auction purchaser was dealt and decided and this Court held that impleading applicant is not entitled to secure conveyance in their favour. Further more, the Apex Court concurred with the directions issued by the Division Bench directing the authorities to refund 25% of the bid amount along with interest. This judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court is confirmed by dismissing the review petition. 8. In the light of these significant details, impleading applicant is not a necessary party to the present petition. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the negative. Consequently, I.A.No.1/2024 is rejected. Finding on point No.2: 9. Considering the nature of relief sought in the present writ petition, this Court is of the firm view that a writ of mandamus is not the appropriate forum for adjudicating conflicting claims over the land in question. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5342 WP No. 11621 of 2020 The primary obligation to examine and resolve the petitioners' representation rests with the competent authority to whom such representation has been submitted. The State, while opposing the claim of the petitioners, cannot seek a resolution of such representation through the writ jurisdiction of this Court, as the process of adjudication must be carried out by the authority designated under law. A writ of mandamus is issued only to compel a public authority to perform its statutory duty and cannot be used as a mechanism for resolving factual disputes that require examination of evidence. The objections raised by the State, including its contention that the land in question is Akharkand Kharab land and that the petitioners were never in possession, must be duly considered by the authority in charge, in accordance with the law. The conflicting assertions made by both parties ,whether the land is Hiduvali land as claimed by the petitioners or Akharkand Kharab land as asserted by the State—necessitate an inquiry by the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:5342 WP No. 11621 of 2020 competent authority, and not by this Court in writ proceedings. 10. Accordingly, without delving into the rival contentions, this Court directs the concerned authorities to take up and decide the representations submitted by the petitioners on 29.08.2019 and 20.12.2019 in accordance with law, after providing due opportunity to all stakeholders. The duty to adjudicate lies squarely with the authority that has received the representation, and it is for that authority to arrive at a lawful conclusion after due consideration of all relevant factors. 11. Therefore, keeping all contentions open, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) Petitioners' representations dated 29.08.2019 and 20.12.2019 shall be considered by respondents 2 and 4 in accordance with law. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:5342 WP No. 11621 of 2020 (iii) This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of four months' from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6