Writ Petition No. 19362 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:22345 WP No. 19362 of 2024 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 19362 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. M.H. RAVICHANDRA, S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT MACHOHALLI VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BAPU VILLAGE POST, BENGALURU - 560 091. REP. BY GPA HOLDER, SRI. S. KRISHNAIAH, S/O LATE SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1199/4, 1ST MAIN ROAD, M.C. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 040. (BY SRI. MITHUN G.A, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DISTRICT, Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONER - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:22345 WP No. 19362 of 2024 HC-KAR BENGALURU - 560 009. 3. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU - 560 009. 4. TAHSILDAR, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 009.
Legal Reasoning
5. SMT. CHIKKANANJAMMA @ SUNANDAMMA, W/O SRI. KENCHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.130, SONDEKOPPA ROAD, BEHIND COURT PREMISES, JAKKASANDRA COLONY, NELAMANGALA TOWN AND TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. R. SHIVACHANDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE FO R5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ORDER DATED 01.04.2024 PASSED BY R-2 IN R.P NO. 120/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:22345 WP No. 19362 of 2024 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 01.04.2024 (Annexure 'A') in RP.No.120/2023 passed by respondent No.2; the corrigendum dated 16.01.2023 and
Decision
order dated 03.11.2022 in RA.No.(BN)221/2020 passed by respondent No.3 vide Annexure A1 and A2 respectively. 2. Heard Sri. Mithun G.A., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Navya Shekhar, learned AGA for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri. R. Shivachandra Naik, learned counsel for respondent No.5. 3. Sri. Mithun G.A, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, invited the attention of this court to the finding recorded by both the respondent-authorities at Annexure A, A1 and A2 and contended that, the Katha made in favour of the private respondent has been questioned - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:22345 WP No. 19362 of 2024 HC-KAR before the respondent-authorities and the respondent- authorities without considering the factual aspects on record, particularly the finding recorded by the competent court in FDP.No.4/2000 (Annexure 'F') has passed the impugned orders, which requires to be interfered with in this petition. He further contended that, both the respondent-authorities have ignored the finding recorded by the competent court in Final Decree Proceedings and therefore, if the subsequent registered release deed and the confirmation deed are contrary to the order dated 16.01.2016 (Annexure 'F') and also the compromise decree at Annexure 'J' in O.S.No.583/2016 and therefore he contended that both the authorities have committed an error in rejecting the application made by the petitioner seeking change of Katha in respect of the subject matter. 4. Per contra, Sri. R. Shivachandra Naik, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 contended that, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:22345 WP No. 19362 of 2024 HC-KAR the authorities having taken note of the judgment and decree passed by this court in RSA.No.750/2003 and thereafter the registered release-cum-settlement deed dated 20.04.2016 and registered confirmation deed dated 01.04.2017 in respect of the subject land made in favour of respondent No.5 and therefore, as the katha has been changed in terms of judgment and decree passed by this court and the registered documents, no interference is called for in this writ petition. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5 that the petitioner herein have filed suit O.S.No.305/2023, challenging the release deed and the confirmation deed in the said suit and therefore, sought for relief of declaration in respect of subject land and therefore, he contended that, until the judgment and decree that may be passed by the trial court in O.S.No.305/2023 is concluded, the petitioner has no locus to claim title in respect of the subject land and accordingly sought for dismissal of the petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:22345 WP No. 19362 of 2024 HC-KAR 5. Learned AGA sought to support the impugned orders passed by the respondent-authorities. 6. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by both the respondent-authorities. Both the authorities have arrived at a conclusion based on the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2005 in RSA.No.750/2003 passed by this court and also considered the two registered deeds, viz., release-cum- settlement deed dated 20.04.2016 and the confirmation deed dated 01.04.2019 and as such arrived at a conclusion to dismiss the claim made by the petitioner. 7. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner herein, refers to the order passed by the competent court in FDP.No.4/2000, at Annexure 'F', however it is well settled principle in law that, the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to determine the title in respect of the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:22345 WP No. 19362 of 2024 HC-KAR properties in question. That apart, it is also forthcoming from the writ papers that the petitioner herein has filed O.S.No.305/2023 before the competent Civil Court and on perusal of the prayer in the plaint would indicate that the plaintiff has sought for declaration in respect of the subject land and also questioned the release deed and confirmation deed said to have been executed between the parties on 01.04.2019. In that view of the matter since the rights of the parties is yet to be crystallized in view of the judgment and decree that may be passed in O.S.No.305/2023, I am of the view that there is no error committed by both the authorities. Accordingly writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 73 CT: BHK