Writ Petition No. 23317 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17855 WP No. 23317 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 23317 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) …PETITIONER BETWEEN: MUTHUVELU PANDIAN S/O LATE RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS NO. 807, BEHIND POST OFFICE KADUGODI BENGALURU-560067. (BY SRI. M.J. ALVA,ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDA BENGALURU-560001. 2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU-560009. 3 . THE ASST. COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVAN K G ROAD BENGALURU-560009. 4 . THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH ADDL. TALUK Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17855 WP No. 23317 of 2024 BENGALURU-560009. 5 . THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR BENGALURU EAST TALUK KRISHNARAJAPURA BENGALURU-560036. 6 . PREM RAMACHANDRA S/O RAMACHANDRA MAJOR NO. 64, ROYAL PARK TERRACE HILLS DAILE N.T. USA 7 . SMT. SUNITHA BHATIA W/O LATE B. RAMESH KUMAR MAJOR NO. 1882, 9TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYA NAGARA II STAGE BENGALURU-560040. 8 . B. MANOHARLAL S/O LATE H. BHAVARLAL MAJOR NO. 238, THIMMAIAH ROAD BENGALURU-560001. 9 . B. ASHOK KUMAR S/O LATE H. BHAVARLAL MAJOR NO. 238, THIMMAIAH ROAD BENGALURU-560001. 10 . B. RAJESH KUMAR S/O LATE H. BHAVARLAL MAJOR NO. 238, THIMMAIAH ROAD BENGALURU-560001. 11 . SMT. SUSHEELA D/O LATE H. BHAVARLAL - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17855 WP No. 23317 of 2024 MAJOR NO. 238, THIMMAIAH ROAD BENGALURU-560001.
Legal Reasoning
12 . SMT. SAVITHA D/O LATE H. BHAVARLAL MAJOR NO. 238, THIMMAIAH ROAD BENGALURU-560001. 13 . SMT. S. NEETHA W/O A. MOHAN BABU MAJOR NO. A-403, LAKE SILVER SPRING LAYOUT MUNNEKOLALA, BENGALURU-560037. …RESPONDENTS (BYSRI.V. SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R5; SRI. N. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R8 TO R10; SRI. VENKATESH P. DALAWAI, ADVOCATE FOR R13; V/O DATED 19.02.2025, NOTICE TO R6, R7, R11 AND R12 IS DEFERRED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.01.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU/RESPONDENT NO.2 IN R.P.No. 145/2003 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: 08.04.2025, COMING ON CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17855 WP No. 23317 of 2024 CAV ORDER 1. One Muthuvelu Pandian, claiming to be the legatee on the basis of Will executed by Padmini Ramachandran, who also claimed to have obtained a probate in Probate and Succession Case No.13 of 2014 in his favour, has presented this writ petition challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner passed under Section 136(3) of the Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, “the Act”). 2. The Deputy Commissioner by the impugned order, has reversed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner by which the Assistant Commissioner had allowed the appeal of Padmini Ramachandran and set aside the order of mutation in favour of Smt.Sunitha Bhatia in an inheritance proceeding i.e., in I.H.C. No.1 of 1992-93. 3. It was the case of Padmini Ramachandran that the Special Deputy Commissioner has passed an order on 29.05.1960 under Section 5 of the Mysore - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17855 WP No. 23317 of 2024 Personal and Miscellaneous Inams Abolition Act and conferred the occupancy rights in favour of S.Chidambaram in respect of Sy.No.42 measuring 03 acres 34 guntas. It is her case that by the endorsement dated 31.12.1966, the land bearing Sy.No.42 was phoded into two blocks and was assigned Sy.No.153 measuring 02 acres 34 guntas and Sy.No.154 measuring 01 acre. 4. Padmini Ramachandran stated that S.Chidambaram had passed away on 03.07.1972 and he had during his lifetime executed a Will on 16.06.1950 whereby he had appointed two executors namely D.Parameshwaran and S.R.Ramamurthi as the Executors of the Will and he had under the Will bequeathed the property to D.Janakiammal and S.R.Mangalam. 5. Padmini Ramachandran stated that the executors along with the legatees executed a registered Sale Deed dated 03.11.1979 conveying an extent of 02 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17855 WP No. 23317 of 2024 acres 34 guntas in Sy.No.153 (new) (Old Sy.No.9) in her favour and pursuant to the said sale, the revenue entry was mutated in her favour vide M.R.No.17 of 1993-94. 6. Padmini Ramachandran proceeded to file an appeal in R.A. No.145 of 1998-99 challenging an order of mutation made in favour of Sunitha Bhatia who got her name entered in the revenue records in inheritance proceedings under I.H.C. No.1 of 1992- 93. 7. It was the case of Sunitha Bhatia that one S.R.Ramakrishnan had executed a sale deed dated 05.02.1947, whereby he had conveyed a building known as Longview Cottage, presently called as Industrial House, together with the right of way leading from the road to the property which was situated in Pattandur Agrahara village, Krishnarajapura Hobli. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17855 WP No. 23317 of 2024 8. She stated that this land bearing Sy.No.153 measured 61.3 feet + 67.2 feet x 207.6 feet. She averred that Challaradu & Company had sold the property to one Bhavarlal on 26.06.1963, and on the basis of this sale deed, the revenue entries were mutated in M.R. No.9 of 1985-86. She stated that on the death of Bhavarlal on 12.06.1987, by consent, the property was mutated in favour of B.Ramesh Kumar—his son by consent, and on his death, the entries were mutated in favour of Sunitha Bhatia under the aforementioned I.H.C.No.1 of 1992-93. 9. The Assistant Commissioner on consideration of the Appeal came to the conclusion that an extent of 03 acres 34 guntas in Sy.No.42 had been granted to Bhavarlal by order of the Special Deputy Commissioner and the said Sy.No.42 had been phoded into Sy.No.153 measuring 02 acres 34 guntas and Sy.No.154 measuring 01 acre, and further taking into consideration that S.Chidambaram - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17855 WP No. 23317 of 2024 had sold 02 acres 34 guntas i.e., in Sy.No.153 to Padmini Ramachandran, the entry of Sunitha Bhatia in the revenue records was illegal and unauthorized and he accordingly set aside the order of mutation made in I.H.C. No.1 of 1992-93. 10. Being aggrieved by this order, Pista Bai—the wife of Bhavarlal and their children together preferred a revision. 11. It may be pertinent to state here that Sunitha Bhatia, in whose name the khata had been registered on the death of Bhavarlal, did not challenge the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. 12. The Deputy Commissioner on consideration of the revision came to the conclusion that as per the Encumbrance Certificate in respect of the property in question, a sale transaction had occurred on 26.06.1963 in favour of Bhavarlal, and the Assistant Commissioner committed an error in including the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:17855 WP No. 23317 of 2024 land purchased by Bhavarlal and came to the conclusion that the entry in favour of Sunitha Bhatia was correct. 13. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and concluded that Bhavarlal had purchased the property measuring 61.3 feet + 67.2 feet x 207.6 feet in Sy.No.153 and therefore, the entry as was prevalent prior to the order of the Deputy Commissioner should be continued. 14. It is as against this order that Muthuvelu Pandian has presented this writ petition. 15. In light of the above facts, the only question that should be considered in this writ petition is as to whether the Deputy Commissioner was justified in setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner whereby he had held that the registration of the khata in favour of Sunitha - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:17855 WP No. 23317 of 2024 Bhatia vide I.H.C. No.1 of 1993-94 was incorrect. 16. At the outset, it must be stated that Bhavarlal’s sale deed dated 26.06.1963 relates to a part of the land bearing Sy.No.9. On the death of Bhavarlal, it is stated that, by consent, the mutation was effected in favour of Sunitha Bhatia's husband—B.Ramesh Kumar, and on his death, the name of Sunitha Bhatia was entered wide I.H.C. No.1 of 1993-94. 17. It should be mentioned here that since the name of Sunitha Bhatia was ordered to be removed from the revenue records by virtue of the order of the Assistant Commissioner, the person aggrieved would be Sunitha Bhatia, who, however, did not choose to file a revision. 18. It is, however, the case of the revision petitioners who had presented the petition under Section 136 of the Act that a suit for partition had been filed in O.S. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:17855 WP No. 23317 of 2024 No.3817 of 1993 and this suit ended in a compromise, under which they were allotted this property and they had made an application for getting the khata registered in their favour. However, since they became aware of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in R.A. No.145 of 1998-99, by which the name of Sunitha Bhatia was ordered to be removed, they were constrained to file the revision which has rightly been allowed. 19. The Assistant Commissioner has noticed that there was an order of the Special Deputy Commissioner on 29.05.1960 under which Sy.No.42 measuring 03 acres 34 guntas was granted to Chidambaram. He has also noticed that this Sy.No.42 was phoded into Sy.No.153 and Sy.No.154 measuring 02 acres 34 guntas and 01 acre respectively. 20. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has in fact placed on record the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner dated 29.05.1960 and also the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:17855 WP No. 23317 of 2024 endorsement dated 31.12.1966 whereby Sy.No.42 had been phoded into Sy.No.153 and Sy.No.154. 21. The sale date dated 03.11.1979 executed by the executor of the Will—Chidambaram and the legatees also indicates that Sy.No.153 measuring 02 acres 34 guntas was indeed conveyed in favour of Padmini Ramachandran. 22. In light of this particular sale deed, the order of the Assistant Commissioner directing that the name of Padmini Ramachandran alone should be entered in the revenue records in respect of Sy.No.153 measuring 02 acres 34 guntas cannot be found fault with. 23. However, it is the case of the contesting respondents that Bhavarlal had purchased the property, and his name had been entered in the revenue records and on his death, by virtue of the decree passed in - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:17855 WP No. 23317 of 2024 O.S.No.3817 of 1993, their name was required to be entered. 24. A perusal of the sale deed, which is produced, under which Bhavarlal purchased the property would indicate that Bhavarlal had purchased a parcel of the land together with a building called Long View Cottage and presently called Industrial House, which is stated to be situated in Sy.No.9. 25. However, on the basis of this sale deed, a claim is being made that he had purchased Sy.No.153. There is no document indicating that Sy.No.9 was phoded and became either Sy.No.42 or Sy.No.153. On the other hand, there is a document of the year 1966 (as observed above) in which it is stated that Sy.No.42 was phoded into Sy.Nos.153 and 154. 26. As observed above, Padmini Ramachandran had purchased Sy.No.153 measuring 02 acres 34 guntas and consequently, it is her name that will have to be - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:17855 WP No. 23317 of 2024 entered in the revenue records in respect of Sy.No.153. 27. However, the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents submits that the petition presented by Muthuvelu Pandian cannot be entertained since there is suppression of material facts. He submits that it is no doubt true that Muthuvelu Pandian had obtained a probate of the Will executed in his favour but the said probate had been stayed in Miscellaneous Case No.177 of 2019 and therefore, the petition could not be entertained. 28. It is argued that the fact that the probate that had been granted had been stayed being suppressed the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief in this petition at the hands of this Court and hence, the petition is therefore required to be dismissed. 29. It is admitted here that a probate has in fact been granted to Muthuvelu Pandian of a Will stated to - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:17855 WP No. 23317 of 2024 have been executed by Padmini Ramachandran. Assuming that this Will whose probate had been stayed, the fact, however, remains that there is recognition of the right of Muthuvelu Pandian, but this recognition is not complete, since the grant of probate to Muthuvelu Pandian has been stayed. This cannot however not take away the fact that Muthuvelu Pandian has an interest in the property in question, which is still pending adjudication. 30. In my view, notwithstanding the order that may be passed in appeal, Muthuvelu Pandian would have the right to maintain this petition. It is not in dispute that Muthuvelu Pandian has also filed a suit for injunction in O.S. No.274 of 2023 against the legal heirs of Bhavarlal and the purchaser from Bhavarlal, i.e. S.Neetha, and also for declaration that the sale deed dated 18.01.2023 executed by the legal representatives of Bhavarlal in favour of S.Neetha was not binding on him. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:17855 WP No. 23317 of 2024 31. In this suit, the Trial Court had granted Muthuvelu Pandian an order of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession. But in appeal, this order has been set aside. 32. On this basis, an argument is sought to be advanced that, Muthuvelu Pandian cannot present the petition and the order of the Deputy Commissioner should not be interfered with. 33. As already noticed above, the only question that was to be considered by the Assistant Commissioner in the appeal that was filed under Section 136 of the Act was as to whether the name of Sunitha Bhatia should have been entered in the revenue records as per I.H.C. No.1 of 1992-93. The Assistant Commissioner having found that Sy.No.42 had been granted to Chidambaram and this Sy.No.42 had been phoded into Sy.Nos.153 and 154 and having also found that Sy.No.153 measuring 02 acres 34 guntas had been sold by Chidambaram to Padmini - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:17855 WP No. 23317 of 2024 Ramachandran, he was justified in holding that the khata in respect of Sy.No.153 will have to be registered in the name of Padmini Ramachandran alone. 34. The Deputy Commissioner has, however, not considered this aspect of the matter and has merely stated that the name of Sunitha Bhatia is to be restored. 35. As already noticed, Sunitha Bhatia claimed to have her name entered on the basis of inheritance. The sale deed under which her predecessor-in-a-title i.e.,Bhavarlal purchased the property indicates that he has purchased the land bearing Sy.No.9. However, since her name was entered in Sy.No.153, it would have to be established that Sy.No.9 stood phoded or was assigned with new Sy.No.153. In the absence of any document to that effect, her claim that Bhavarlal’s name was rightly entered in respect of Sy.No.153 and consequently, on the death of - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:17855 WP No. 23317 of 2024 Bhavarlal her name will have to entered either as a legal representative or the names on the basis of the partition decree obtained by his legal representatives, cannot be accepted at least in so far as Sy.No.153 is concerned. 36. The legal representatives of Bhavarlal would therefore have to approach the Civil Court and secure a declaration that Bhavarlal had purchased a portion of Sy.No.153 and that they were the owners of this portion in Sy.No.153. 37. Unless a declaration is obtained that the land purchased by Bhavarlal is relatable to Sy.No.153, by virtue of Sy.No.9 being renumbered or reassigned as Sy.No.153, the legal representatives of Bhavarlal cannot demand their names to be entered in the revenue records in respect of Sy.No.153. 38. An argument sought to be advanced that in Sy.No.9, a portion of the property was sold to M/s.Challaradu - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:17855 WP No. 23317 of 2024 & Company on 05.02.1947 and he in turn sold a portion of the said property in favour of Chidambaram and they are two separate bits of properties. This is a question that will have to be adjudicated upon by the Civil Court and not by the Revenue Courts. 39. Since the sale deed under which Bhavarlal claims relates to Sy.No.9, and there is no document to indicate that Sy.No.9 was re-assigned either Sy.No.42 or Sy.No.153, the Assistant Commissioner was justified in passing an order directing removal of the name of Sunitha Bhatia from the revenue records. 40. I am therefore of the view that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner who did not consider any of these questions cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly quashed and the order of the Assistant Commissioner shall stand restored. - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:17855 WP No. 23317 of 2024 41. It is, however, made clear that nothing said in this order should be construed as recognizing the title of Muthuvelu Pandian, as this would be determined in appeal that has been filed against the grant of probate. 42. Similarly, nothing said in this order shall be construed as rendering any opinion on the merits of the claim of Bhavarlal and the legal representatives that the land that Bhavarlal purchased on 26.06.1963 and it would be open for them to institute an appropriate suit for declaration claiming that they had purchased Sy.No.153 to the extent mentioned in the sale deed. 43. If the legal representatives of Bhavarlal or the purchasers through the legal representatives of Bhavarlal would approach the Civil Court and obtain the said declaration, the revenue entries shall abide by the result of the said suit. - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:17855 WP No. 23317 of 2024 44. The writ partition is accordingly allowed. 45. In view of the disposal of the petitions, all pending
Decision
interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 133