HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N v. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. vs ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12689-DB WA No. 1365 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. N.V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND WRIT APPEAL NO. 1365 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI AHMED BASHA S/O. ABDUL WAHAB AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT NO.1435, 29TH MAIN SECOND STAGE, BTM LAYOUT BANGALORE - 560 076. REPRESENTED BY HIS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI SAIFULLA ANWAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O. MR. SYED ANWAR R/AT NO.391, B7, BDA QUARTERS NEELASANDRA, NEAR AUSTIN TOWN BDA COMPLEX BANGALORE - 560 047.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI P. BHUVANDENDRA RAJU, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001. Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12689-DB WA No. 1365 of 2024 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT KANDAYA BHAVAN BANGALORE - 560 009. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SUB-DIVISION SOUTH KANDAYA BHAVAN BANGALORE - 560 009. 4. THE TAHSHILDHAR ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE - 562 106. 5. SMT. T. NAGARANI W/O. LATE TIRUMALA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO.127/11, GROUND FLOOR BULL TEMPLE ROAD, CHAMARAJPET BANGALORE - 560 018. 6. SMT. KRISHNAMMA W/O. MUNIYAPPA (DELETED V/O DT. 24.03.2025) 7. SRI MUNIYELLAPPA S/O. LATE KAKAPPA (DELETED V/O DT. 24.03.2025) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO 4; R-6 & 7 ARE DELETED V/O DT. 24.03.2025)
Decision
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 22.07.2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN WRIT PETITION NO. 9337/2024 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12689-DB WA No. 1365 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA) Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. K.N. Phanindra with learned advocate Mr. P. Bhuvanendra Raju for the appellant and learned Government Advocate Mr. K.S. Harish for respondent Nos.1 to 4. As far as respondent Nos.6 and 7 are concerned, as was prayed for by the appellant, they stood deleted from the array of respondents by the order dated 24.03.2025. 2. This appeal is filed by the original petitioner seeking to call in question the judgment and order dated 22.07.2024 of learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition came to be dismissed. 2.1 What was prayed by the appellant-petitioner in the petition was to set aside the order dated 02.02.2024 passed by respondent No.2-the Deputy Commissioner dismissing Revision Petition No.427 of 2022. Also challenged was the order dated 10.10.2022 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12689-DB WA No. 1365 of 2024 passed by respondent No.3-the Assistant Commissioner which was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. 2.2 The petitioner, before the said authorities, had prayed for direction to respondent No.4-the Tahsildar to restore mutation in his favour in respect of the property bearing Survey No.88/7 (old Survey No.88/3) admeasuring 21 Guntas situated at Maragondanahalli Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluka, Bengaluru. 3. The petitioner claims to be the owner and in possession of the subject property bearing Survey No.88/7 (old Survey No.88/3). It was the case that the petitioner had purchased the same as per the registered sale deed dated 27.12.2019 from respondent Nos.5 and 6. 3.1 It was stated that the land purchased was an Inam land. The same was granted in favour of one Muniyappa by order of the competent authority dated 05.10.1958. The grant order was produced. It was stated that the revenue records stood in the name of the original grantee. In another proceedings, before the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition in Case No.19 of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12689-DB WA No. 1365 of 2024 1958-59, the occupancy rights to the said extent of 16 Guntas in Survey No.88/3 came to be granted in favour of one H.N. Ramaiah. 3.2 The said Ramaiah had executed registered sale deed dated 08.02.1986 to the extent of 16 Guntas in the said survey number in favour of one Yellappa. The facts further suggested that the said Yellappa sold the said 16 Guntas of land in favour of one Mohammad Hussain by registered sale deed dated 07.09.1966. 3.3 The children of Yellappa thereafter executed sale deed in favour of one Thirumalaswamy on 15.02.1996. It was contended that the said Thirumalaswamy secured mutation entry in his favour fraudulently to the extent of total 1 Acre and 20 Guntas in respect of the land in question, Survey No.88/3. 3.4 It is the case of the petitioner that as per the Inam order, the extent of land available in Survey No.88/3 is only 37 Guntas, however, the private respondents purchased the land to the extent of 21 Guntas instead of 16 Guntas. The petitioner asserts his right on 21 Guntas of land. It was contended that the grant made in favour of the original grantee Muniyappa was only 21 Guntas and therefore, the conveyance in favour of the other grantee that is, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12689-DB WA No. 1365 of 2024 Ramaiah was to that extent of 16 Guntas only. Therefore, it was the case of the petitioner that both the authorities erroneously concluded that the private respondents purchased any further area of land and in fact, the land available in Survey No.88/7 is only 16 Guntas. 4. Learned Single Judge recorded the following finding in paragraph 10, Attorney of the Power "...on the careful examination of registered Sale Deed dated 27.12.2019 wherein, the said Sale Deed has been executed based on registered General Power of Attorney dated the said 02.09.2019 and wherein, General Smt. Krishnamma is also party to the said document and she died, before the execution of the registered Sale Deed made in favour of the petitioner herein on 27.12.2019 and taking into account the factual aspects as it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the land available in Sy.No.88/3 is only 16 guntas and the private respondents have no authority in law to have the mutation transferred insofar as 21 guntas is concerned, I am of the view that, the disputed question of facts are involved in this writ petition." - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12689-DB WA No. 1365 of 2024 4.1 Observed learned Single Judge in paragraph 11, in question the property "It is needless to say that, there are 5 suits pending consideration before the competent Civil Court as mentioned at paragraph 19 of the Statement of Objections. I am of the view that, it is the petitioner has to establish his right over in a manner known to law. In the event, the petitioner herein files a suit to declare himself as the owner in possession of the land before competent court, the observation made by this Court in the present Writ Petition does not come in the way of jurisdictional Court to decide the right of the parties in a manner known to law." 5. On the basis of the aforesaid factual aspects, it was rightly recorded by learned Single Judge the finding that disputed questions of facts are involved. Furthermore, both the authorities have concurrently held that the appellant-petitioner has to establish his right over the property by resorting to civil remedy. It was also taken into account that between the parties, five suits are pending. 5.1 In the statement of objections, the undisputed fact is revealed that the property in question has been converted for residential purpose and the owners of the different sites have - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12689-DB WA No. 1365 of 2024 instituted Original Suit Nos.86 of 2023, 87 of 2023, 106 of 2023, 107 of 2023, 108 of 2023 and 109 of 2023 before the Civil Court at Anekal and order of temporary injunction is obtained against the petitioner. The contention is raised that the Sale Deed in favour of the appellant is nullity in eye of law and that the sale deed of respondent No.5 is prior in point of time. All these aspects are yet to be gone into and adjudicated in the suit proceedings. 6. In the facts of the case, the judgment and order of learned Single Judge does not book any error. It is not required to be interfered with. 6.1 However, since suits are pending as above, it is provided and directed that since the appellant-petitioner has claim over the land admeasuring 21 Guntas, the mutation entry shall contain a note below it that the appellant has claim over 21 Guntas of land in question and that the said claim shall abide by the final outcome of the proceedings of the suits. 7. With the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12689-DB WA No. 1365 of 2024 In view of disposal of the appeal, the interlocutory applications, as may be pending, would not survive and they stand accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE BKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14