Writ Petition No. 12809 of 2021 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:19985 WP No. 12809 of 2021 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.12809 OF 2021 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O. SRI. SHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 2. SRI. SHIVAPPA S/O. SRI. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NAKKANHALLI VILLAGE, ROBERTSONPET HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK - 563114. …PETITIONERS Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. SRIKANTH M.P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR - 563102. 2. THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANT TO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR - 563102. 3. THE TAHASILDAR BANGARPET TALUK, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:19985 WP No. 12809 of 2021 HC-KAR BANGARPET - 563114. 4. SRI. GANGIREDDY S/O. LATE NARAYANAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NAKKANHALLI VILLAGE, ROBERTSONPET HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK - 563114. 5. SRI. GURUVAREDDY S/O. LATE. NARAYANAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NAKKANHALLI VILLAGE, ROBERTSONPET HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK - 563114. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. VARUN PAPIREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.01.2020 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND CONFIRMED AN ORDER DATED 23.09.2014 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND G. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19985 WP No. 12809 of 2021 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing the order dated 22.01.2020, in R.P.No.18 of 2014-15 passed by the respondent No.1, remanding the matter to the respondent No.2, for fresh consideration. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that, the petitioners have purchased 01 acre, 24 guntas of land in Sy.No.82/2, situate at Maskam Village, Kolar District. It is also stated that, the mother of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 has purchased 20 guntas of the suit schedule properties as per registered Sale Deed dated 17.05.1991 and thereafter, several sale deeds have been executed in respect of other persons. It is also stated that, major portion of the land being purchased by the petitioner No.1. It is further stated in the writ petition that, OS No.328 of 2013 was filed by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 before the I Aditional Civil Judge and JMFC, KGF seeking relief of declaration and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:19985 WP No. 12809 of 2021 HC-KAR permanent injunction, which came to be decreed as per judgment and decree dated 07.08.2019 (Annexure-A). It is also stated in the writ petition that, the judgment and decree passed by the competent Civil court in OS NO.328 of 2013, was confirmed in RA No.89 of 2019 by the First Appellate Court as per the judgment and decree dated 04.01.2021 (Annexure-B). It is also stated in the writ petition that, the plaintiffs in the suit (private respondents in the present writ petition) have not proved the existence of the land and the extent correctly, and therefore, it is the contention of the petitioners that, though the respondent No.2 herein as per order dated 23.09.2014 dismissed the appeal filed by the private respondents herein, as per Annexure-G, and same was erroneously interfered with by the respondent No.1 in R.P.No.18 of 2014-15 dated 22.01.2020 (Annexure-H). The respondent No.1 while allowing the Revision Petition, remanded the matter to the respondent No.2 herein to consider the case of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:19985 WP No. 12809 of 2021 HC-KAR parties on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. 3. I have heard Sri. Srikanth M.P., learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and Sri. Varun Papireddy, learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5. 4. Sri. M.P.Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, the respondent No.1 erroneously remanded the matter to the respondent No.2, wherein, fair opportunity has been extended to the parties and despite the same through the private respondents herein have not contested the matter by providing relevant documents and as such, respondent No.2 after considering spot inspection report dated 07.05.2014 dismissed the appeal preferred by the respondents herein. Therefore, the sought for - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:19985 WP No. 12809 of 2021 HC-KAR interference of this court stating that the remanding the matter to the respondent No.1 was not warranted and therefore, sought for confirmation of the order passed by the respondent No.2 at Annexure-G. 5. Sri. Varun Papireddy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5, invited the attention of the court to the order passed by the respondent No.1, and argued that, since there is a dispute with regard to extent of land and further, no fair opportunity was extended to the private respondents, though the judgment and decree is passed in OS No.328 of 2013 in favour of the private respondents herein, and therefore, sought to justify the order of remand passed by the respondent No.1. 6. Sri. Manjunath, K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent- State, sought for confirmation of the order at Annexure- H passed by respondent No.1. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:19985 WP No. 12809 of 2021 HC-KAR 7. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, originally the land bearing Sy.No.82/2, measuring 02 acres, 23 guntas situate at Maskam Village, Bangarpet Taluk, Kolar District, belongs to one Smt. Vijayamma, w/o. Muniyappa, and an extent of 07 guntas is Karab land. In this regard, discussion has been made by the respondent No.1 in the impugned order about discrepancy of extent of land wherein, Sy No.82/2 is measuring 02 acres, 23 guntas of land, however, revenue authorities, by oversight, have shown 07 guntas as karab land and total extent of land as 02 acres, 16 guntas and thereafter, the mutation has been registered in MR No.21/1988-89. It is also forthcoming from the perusal of the Annexure-G passed by the respondent No.2, wherein, no discussion has been made with regard to claim made by the appellants therein, so also, with reference to judgment and decree passed in OS No.328 of 2013 dated 07.08.2019 (Annexure-A). In - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:19985 WP No. 12809 of 2021 HC-KAR that view of the matter, taking into consideration, the plea raised by the petitioners and private respondents herein, I am of the opinion that, impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 is just and proper by remanding the matter to the respondent No.2 to re- consider the case of the parties afresh, by extending opportunity of hearing, so also, to consider the judgment and decree passed by the competent Civil Court referred to above. With this observation, the writ
Decision
petition is disposed of. Taking into consideration the lis between the parties which is more than two decades, the respondent No.2 is directed to expedite the hearing at the earliest. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74