Writ Petition No. 26079 of 2023 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:20432 WP No. 26079 of 2023 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 26079 OF 2023 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. M.P.NARAYAN, S/O LATE PARTHASARATHY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O NO.3308/6, 12TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS, MCC B BLOCK, DAVANGERE – 577 004. 2. M.P.VEENA, W/O RAVI HONNAVARA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O NO.193/4, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN, BSM LAYOUT, KENGERI UPANAGARA, BENGALURU – 560 060. 3. M.P.MADHUSUDHAN, S/O LATE PARTHASARATHY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O DODDAMALURU POST, CHANNAPATNA TALUK – 562 160, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. 4. NAGAMANI, W/O LATE PARTHASARATHY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
Legal Reasoning
Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:20432 WP No. 26079 of 2023 HC-KAR R/O DODDAMALURU POST, CHANNAPATNA TALUK – 562 160, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. YATHIRAJ DEAD BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS 5. Y. SHANTHA, W/O LATE YATHIRAJ, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/O THERU BEEDHI, DODDAMALURU, CHANNAPATNA TALUK – 562 160, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. 6. ANAND Y.N., S/O LATE YATHIRAJ, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O NO.2395, 10TH MAIN, E – BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 010. 7. M.K.CHALLAPPAN, S/O LATE M.N. KRISHNA IYENGAR, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O NO.528, LIG – B, DR.A.S. RAO NAGAR, ECIL POST, HYDERABAD – 500 062.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. P.N. HARISH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, …PETITIONERS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20432 WP No. 26079 of 2023 HC-KAR DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA – 562 159. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARA SUB DIVISION, RAMANAGARA – 562 159. 4. THE TAHASILDAR, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, CHANNAPATNA – 562 160, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. 5. S.NAGARAJU, S/O NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, NO.27, PAPANNA LAYOUT, MAMATHA STORE, YARAGANAHALLI, MYSURU – 570 011. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; SRI.V.R.BALARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.07.2023 PASSED BY SECOND RESPONDENT IN REVISION PETITION NO.101/2020-21 PRODUCED AS PER
Decision
ANNEXURE - D TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC., - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:20432 WP No. 26079 of 2023 HC-KAR 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 ORAL ORDER 1. In this writ petition, petitioners are assailing the order dated 18.07.2023 passed by respondent No.2 in R.P.No101/2020-21 produced at Annexure-D to the writ petition. 2. Heard Sri P.N. Harish, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Manjunath K. learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri V.R. Balaraj, learned counsel for respondent No.5. 3. Sri P.N. Harish, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the land in question was purchased by the father of petitioner No.7-M.N.Krishna Iyengar in a Court auction through registered Sale Deed on 01.10.1941 and thereafter, the revenue records stands - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:20432 WP No. 26079 of 2023 HC-KAR in the name of the father of petitioner No.7 and therefore, the petitioners have right in respect of the schedule land. He further contended that respondent No.4 without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners herein has passed an order in M.R.No.154/1996-97 and ordered to change the katha, which was earlier standing in the name of the father of the petitioner No.7. He also submitted that change of katha in M.R.No.154/1996-97 has been made in terms of unregistered Partition Deed dated 01.10.1991 (exactly after 50 years) and therefore, he contended that, unless the private respondent herein has to establish their right in respect of the subject land, as to how the ancestors of respondent No.5 had acquired the land in question, and therefore, the said aspect of the matter has not been considered by respondent Nos.2 and 4 and therefore, sought for interference by this Court. 4. Per contra, Sri V.R. Balaraj, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 submitted that respondent No.5 had acquired the land in terms of the Partition Deed - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:20432 WP No. 26079 of 2023 HC-KAR referred to above on 01.10.1991 and therefore, as the land in question is ancestral property of the respondent No.5 and therefore, no interference is called for in this writ petition. 5. He further invited the attention of the Court to Annexure-R5-A, the Deed of Gift said to have been executed on 25.07.1956 and submitted that neither the forefathers of the petitioners nor the petitioners have any right in respect of the subject land as per the registered Gift Deed produced at Annexure-R5. Accordingly he submitted that the finding recorded by respondent No.2 requires to be confirmed in this petition. 6. Sri. Manjunath K., learned HCGP appearing for respondents 1 to 4 sought to justify the impugned order at Annexure-D. 7. In the light of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute with regard to the fact that the land bearing Sy.No.405/2, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:20432 WP No. 26079 of 2023 HC-KAR Measuring an extent of 16 guntas of land in Malur Village, Channapattana Taluk was purchased by one Sri M.N. Krishna Iyengar as per the registered Sale Deed dated 01.10.1941. 8. It is also to be noted that pursuant to the execution of the registered Sale Deed, the revenue records stands in the name of Sri M.N.Krishna Iyengar. Petitioners herein are the legal heirs of deceased Sri M.N. Krishna Iyengar. 9. On careful examination of the change of entry made by respondent No.4 in M.R.No.154/1996-97, it is stated at Annexure-E that the mutation has been changed as per the unregistered Partition Deed in respect of the subject land. Even if it is taken into consideration that the change of entry has been made pursuant to the Partition Deed, however, respondent No.5 has not established his right over the property in question, except producing index of the land at Annexure-R5B. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:20432 WP No. 26079 of 2023 HC-KAR 10. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration that, learned counsel for respondent No.5 submitted that, one Sri M.N. Krishna Iyengar had gifted the land in question as per the Deed Of Gift dated 25.07.1956 and also respondent No.5 herein has not produced any co-gent material to establish his right in respect of the land in question, I am of the view that, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure D requires to be set aside and accordingly Annexure D is set side. It is open for the parties to establish their right before the Civil Court in respect of the subject land. 12. With this observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48