Writ Petition No. 4771 of 2020 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:19392 WP No. 4771 of 2020 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 4771 OF 2020 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI V T MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS S/OL ATE SRI. THAMMAIAH @ THAMMAYAPPA, RESIDING AT NO.8, VEERSAGARA VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, FORMERLY IN BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, NOW IN YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU - 560064. Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 2. SRI CHAITRA V R AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, D/O LATE SRI V T RAMESH & AND WIFE OF SRI ANJAN 3. SRI HARISH GOWDA V R AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS S/O LATE SRI V T RAMESH 4. SRI RANJIT GOWDA V R AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS S/O LATE SRI V T RAMESH THE PETITIONERS NO.2 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO 11, VEERASAGARA VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:19392 WP No. 4771 of 2020 HC-KAR FORMERLY IN BENGALURU NORTH TALUK NOW IN YELAHANKA TALUK BENGALURU - 560064 …PETITIONERS
Legal Reasoning
[NOTE: SRI. V.T. RAMESH, SON OF LATE SRI. THAMMAIAH DIED ON 05.06.2019 DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE CASE IN REVISION PETITION NO.155/2014-2015 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AUTHORITY HEREIN, HENCE THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF LATE SRI. V.T. RAMESH ARE IMPLEADED IN THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION AS PETITIONERS NO.2 TO 4] (BY SRI. C SHANKAR REDDY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY "VIKASA SOUDHA" DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT KANDAYA BHAVANA, K G ROAD BENGALURU - 560009 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVANA, K G ROAD BENGALURU - 560009 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19392 WP No. 4771 of 2020 HC-KAR 4. THE TAHASILDAR TALUK OFFICE, YELAHANKA BENGALURU NORTH TALUK PRESENTLY YELAHANKA TALUK BENGALURU - 560064 5. SRI NAGESHA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS SON OF LATE SRI MARIYAPPA AND GRANDSON OF SMT LAKSHMAMMA, 6. SRI YOGESHA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS SON OF LATE SRI MARIYAPPA AND GRANDSON OF SMT LAKSHMAMMA 7. SMT GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS DAUGHTER OF LATE SRI RANGAPPA AND LATE SMT LAKSHMAMMA 8. SRI MUTHANNA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS SON OF LATE SRI RANGAPPA AND LATE SMT LAKSHMAMMA 9. SRI RANGANATH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS SON OF LATE SMT MUTHAMMA AND GRANDSON OF LATE SMT LAKSHMAMMA 10. SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS SON OF LATE SRI RAJANNA AND GRANDSON OF LATE SMT LAKSHMAMMA - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:19392 WP No. 4771 of 2020 HC-KAR 11. SRI KEERTHI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS SON OF LATE SRI RAJANNA AND GRANDSON OF LATE SMT LAKSHMAMMA 12. SMT SHOBHA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS WIFE OF LATE SRI RAJANNA 13. SRI MAHIMARAJU AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS SON OF LATE SRI RAJANNA AND GRANDSON OF LATE SMT LAKSHMAMMA 14. SMT RATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS DAUGHTER OF LATE SRI RANGAPPA AND LATE SMT LAKSHMAMMA 15. SRI CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS SON OF LATE SRI RANGAPPA AND LATE SMT LAKSHMAMMA 16. SRI MARUTHI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS SON OF LATE SRI RANGAPPA AND LATE SMT LAKSHMAMMA 17. SMT BHAGYAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS DAUGHTER OF LATE SRI RANGAPPA AND LATE SMT LAKSHMAMMA - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:19392 WP No. 4771 of 2020 HC-KAR 18. SMT VIJAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS DAUGHTER OF LATE SRI RANGAPPA AND LATE SMT LAKSHMAMMA 19. SMT SAVITHRAMMA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS DAUGHTER OF LATE SRI RANGAPPA AND LATE SMT LAKSHMAMMA THE RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 19 ARE RESIDING AT VEERASAGARA VILLAGE, YELAHNKA HOBLI, FORMERLY IN BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, NOW IN YELHANKA TALUK BENGALURU - 560064 …RESPONDENTS [NOTE: SMT. LAKSHMAMA, WIFE OF LATE SRI. RANGAPPA DIED DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE CASE IN REVISION PETITION NO.155/2014-2015 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AUTHORITY HEREIN, HENCE THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF LATE SMT.LAKSHMAMMA ARE IMPLEADED IN THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION AS RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 19] (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4., SRI. PRASIDDARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R15, R17 TO R19., SRI. S.R. HEGDE HUDLAMANE, ADVOCATE FOR R16) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR CERTIORARI OR DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS OF LIKE - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:19392 WP No. 4771 of 2020 HC-KAR NATURE, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.10.2019, THE ANNEXURE 'C' PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN CASE REVISION PETITION NO.155/2014-2015 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 16.10.2019 (Annexure-C) in R.P.No.155/2014-15 by respondent No.2 and the order dated 07.07.2014 in R.A.(BNA) No.177/2013-14 (Annexure-D) passed by respondent No.3. 3. For the purpose of adjudication of the writ petition is concerned, the relevant facts as stated in the petition are as under: Petitioner No.1 is the eldest son of Lt. Thammaiah and Sri. V.T. Ramesh is the younger brother of petitioner No.1. The younger brother of petitioner i.e., V.T. Ramesh died on 05.06.2019 and his legal representatives were brought on - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:19392 WP No. 4771 of 2020 HC-KAR record as petitioner Nos.2 to 4 in this petition. It is also averred in the writ petition that, there was partition in the joint family of the petitioners and his brothers, as per registered partition deed dated 20.11.2003 (Annexure-E) and pursuant to the same, the mutation entries has been changed in M.R.No.30/2003-04 dated 15.07.2004 and M.R.No.31/2004-05 dated 05.04.2005, (Annexures-F and F1) respectively. The said order of change of mutation was challenged by one Lakshmamma, (the legal representatives are respondent Nos.5 to 19). Respondent No.3 vide order dated 07.07.2014 (Annexure-D), allowed the appeal and as such set aside the M.R.No.30/2003-04 and M.R.No.31/2004-05 made in respect of the land in question and as such directed respondent No.4 to effect mutation in favour of the said Lakshmamma (Appellant in R.A.No.177/2013-14). 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein have preferred R.P.No.155/2014-15 before respondent No.2 herein and the Revisional Authority by order dated 16.10.2019 dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner herein and as such confirmed the order passed by respondent No.3. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:19392 WP No. 4771 of 2020 HC-KAR Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have presented this writ petition. 5. Sri. C. Shankar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that the respondents - Authorities have violated the interim order of this Court and accordingly sought for taking action against the respondents - Authorities concerned. 6. Nextly, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that M.R.No.30/2003-04 and M.R.No.31/2004- 05 have been made pursuant to the registered partition deed between the petitioners and therefore as the mutation entries have been made as per the registered partition deed produced at Annexure-E and therefore both authorities have committed error in interfering with the mutation entries which is challenged before respondent No.3 as per Annexure-D. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. 7. Per contra, Sri. S.R.Hegde, learned counsel representing respondent No.16 invited the attention of the Court to Annexure-R16 and submitted that the petitioners herein have filed O.S.No.1318/2021 before the competent Civil - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:19392 WP No. 4771 of 2020 HC-KAR Court seeking relief of declaration in respect of subject land with consequential relief and the said suit is pending consideration before the Trial Court and therefore he contended that, until the said suit is adjudicated by the Civil Court by determining the title in respect of the subject land in question and as such, no interference is called for in this writ petition. 8. He also submitted that, the petitioners herein have filed O.S.No.111/2009 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru and another in O.S.No.752/2006 was filed by the petitioners herein, seeking relief of injunction against the private respondents herein and the said suit came to be dismissed with liberty to the petitioners herein to file comprehensive suit seeking relief of declaration with consequential relief. Accordingly, he submitted that there is no interference is called for. 9. Sri. Manjunath K., learned HCGP submitted that no interference is called for in the impugned orders produced at Annexure-C and D respectively and sought for dismissal of the petition. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:19392 WP No. 4771 of 2020 HC-KAR 10. Having taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, it is forthcoming from the writ papers that M.R.No.30/2003-04 and M.R.No.31/2004-05 have been effected by respondent No.4 in terms of the registered partition deed produced at Annexure-E
Decision
to the writ petition. Thereafter, the said proceedings have been challenged by one Lakshmamma (legal representatives are private respondents Nos.5 to 19), and the respondent - authority after considering the material on record, arrived at a conclusion that the petitioners herein have to establish their right in respect of the subject land since the appellant therein had purchased the schedule property as per the registered sale deed dated 02.09.1957 and nothing is effected in the land records for more than six decades. The said order passed by respondent No.3 is confirmed by respondent No.2. As it is contended by the learned counsel for the parties that, O.S.No.1318/2021 is pending consideration before the Civil Court, which is filed by the petitioners, seeking relief of declaration in respect of the said land is concerned and in that view of the matter, until the adjudication of the rights of the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:19392 WP No. 4771 of 2020 HC-KAR parties is made in the above suit, I am of the view that no interference is called for in this writ petition. 11. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners herein being defendants in O.S.No.1318/2021 have filed an application before the Civil Court under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC, seeking violation of the orders passed by the Trial Court. 12. In that view of the matter since the enquiry is yet to be conducted insofar as the said application is concerned before the Trial Court, I am of the view that no interference is called for in the present petition, as all the contentions of the parties are kept open to be urged in the suit. 13. Petition is accordingly, dismissed. 14. Pending I.A.No.1/2024 is accordingly disposed of. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE RKA