Writ Petition No. 28685 of 2023 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12822 WP No. 28685 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 28685 OF 2023 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. BASAVARAJU S/O LATE KARIBASAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS OCC AGRICULTURE GEDDALAHALLI VILLAGE SOMPURA HOBLI, NEALAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 560 023 GOVARDHAN ACCUMULATORS 2. SRI. SHIVASHANKARAPPA S/O LATE RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O BAVIKERE VILLAGE KASABA NELAMANGALA HOBLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. 3. SRI. SOMANNA S/O LATE KARIBASAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/O NO. 58/1, 3RD MAIN VRISHABAVATHI, BANGALORE 79. 4. SMT. RATHNAMMA D/O LATE RAJANNA AGED ABOUT YEARS R/O NO. 42, 8TH CROSS CHOLURU PALYA, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. 5. SMT. SAROJAMMA D/O RAJANNA Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12822 WP No. 28685 of 2023 AGED ABOUT YEARS KASABA NELAMANGALA D/O JAKKASANDRA HOBLI TLAUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
Legal Reasoning
6. SMT. SHANTHAMMA D/O ALTE KARIBAAVAIAH W/O SHIANNA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS TURUVEKERE KALLUKERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT. 7. SRI. MARIYAPPA S/O LATE KARIBASAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O NO.42, 3RD CROSS ROAD, CHOLURU PALYA, BANGALORE 23 8. JAYAMMA, D/O LATE NAGAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS ADI HOSAHALLI OBALAPURA POST THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALATALUK (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ N ARALI., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS AND: 1. THE TAHSILDAR NELAMANGALA, BANGALORE-562123. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA-561203. 3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BEERASANDRA-562110. 4. SRI. PANCHAKSHARI - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12822 WP No. 28685 of 2023 S/O LATE PUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS GEDDALAHALLI SOMPUR HOBI, NELAMANGALA TLAUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 560 023 5. SRI. KUMARA S/O LATE PUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS GEDDALAHALLI, SOMPUR HOBLI, NELAMANGAL ATALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 560 023 6. SMT. SIDDAGANGAMMA W/O LATE PUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS GEDDALAHALLI SOMPUR HOBLI, NELAMANGAL ATALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 560 023 (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI. KALYAN.R., ADVOCATE FOR R-4; R-5 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED 05.06.2024, NOTICE TO R-6 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI ANNEXURE-M, ORDER DATED 27/10/2018 PASSED BY THE R2 IN RA (NE). 387/2018, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. These following facts are not in dispute even according to the petitioners. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12822 WP No. 28685 of 2023 2. On 14.04.1956, there was a registered Sale Deed executed in respect of 33 guntas in Sy.No.11 in favour of Puttaiah, son of Basappa. Subsequently, under a registered Sale Deed dated 24.10.1960, a further extent of 33 guntas of land in Sy.No.11 was also sold in favour of Puttaiah, son of Basappa. Thus, as per the averments in the writ petition i.e., in paragraphs 7 and 8, petitioners admit that there were two Sale Deeds in favour of Puttaiah, son of Basappa. 3. In paragraph 9 of the petition, they also admit that under a registered Sale Deed dated 03.07.1972, Puttaiah sold an extent of 33 guntas in favour of Shivanna. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent contends that under the registered Sale Deed 14.05.1962, Puttaiah purchased another extent of 33 guntas in Sy.No.11 from Nagaiah, son of Kariyappa. He also contends that under the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12822 WP No. 28685 of 2023 registered Sale Deed dated 30.04.1993 executed by Shivanna, Puttaiah secured back the 33 guntas of land that he had earlier sold to Shivanna and in all, Puttaiah had acquired 2 acres 19 guntas and as a consequence, his name was entered in MR.No.2/1992-93. 5. As admitted by the petitioners themselves there were two Sale Deeds in favour of Puttaiah and Puttaiah had in turn sold 33 guntas to one Shivanna and said Shivanna had in turn sold said 33 guntas back to Puttaiah. It is therefore clear that even according to the averments in the writ petition, Puttaiah had acquired 66 guntas of land and by the other Sale Deed, as contended by the learned counsel for the contesting respondent, Puttaiah had acquired another 33 guntas, thus, totaling 2 acres 19 guntas. It is therefore not in dispute that his name was entered in the revenue record in respect of said 2 acres 19 guntas. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12822 WP No. 28685 of 2023 6. It is the further case of the contesting respondents that the children of Puttaiah entered into a partition and this was reflected in MR.No.3/1997-98. However, under MR.No.3/1997-98, only an extent of 1 acre 26 guntas was indicated and as a consequence, one of the sons of Puttaiah who had been allotted the remaining 33 guntas in the partition had sought for correction of the entry made in MR.No.3/1997-98 before the Tahsildar. 7. The Tahsildar had refused to entertain the plea and as a consequence, an appeal was preferred to the Assistant Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner by the order dated 27.10.2018 directed the Tahsildar to conduct an enquiry and enter the name of the appellant therein i.e., Panchakshari (Puttaiah's son) after verifying the documents. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12822 WP No. 28685 of 2023 8. Being aggrieved by this order of the Assistant Commissioner, a revision was preferred by the petitioners herein. 9. The petitioners herein contended that the property in question belonged to them and the revenue entries ought not to have been mutated in favour of Puttaiah. The Deputy Commissioner, however, rejected this plea and found that there were registered Sale Deeds in the name of Puttaiah who was incidentally the father of respondents 3 and 4 before him i.e., Panchakshari and Kumara and the name of Puttaiah was in the RTC and on his demise, the names of his children i.e., Panchakshari and Kumara, who had succeeded to his property, were entered and a partition had also been effected between them in the year 1996 and their names were therefore entered in the RTC extract. He found that in the RTC extract, by oversight, the name of Panchakshari had been left out and there was no - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12822 WP No. 28685 of 2023 dispute or rival claim amongst the children of Puttaiah and therefore, it was appropriate to direct that the names of legal heirs of Puttaiah i.e., Panchakshari, Kumara and Siddagamgamma be entered in the revenue records. The revision was accordingly disposed of directing the entries to be made as ordered by the Deputy Commissioner. 10. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners are before this Court. 11. At the very outset, it is to be stated here that though the petitioners claim that their father had purchased the entire extent of land i.e., 2 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.11 way back in the year 1941, it is admitted that the name of the father of the petitioners was never entered in the revenue record. More importantly, neither the father of the petitioners, nor the petitioners challenged the entries made either in the name of Puttaiah or the entries in the RTC which - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12822 WP No. 28685 of 2023 reflected the names of children of Puttaiah, on his demise. 12. In short, the entry of either the name of Puttaiah or the names of his children, on his demise, in the revenue record was never questioned either by the father of the petitioners or the petitioners. They also did not seek for entering their names in the revenue records on the basis of the alleged registered Sale Deed in the year 1941 in favour of their father. 13. To put it differently, though it is contended that the father of the petitioners had purchased the entire extent of land in Sy.No.11 way back in the year 1941, right from the year 1941 till date, the name of the petitioners' father had never been found in the revenue records. If the name of the petitioners' father had never been found in the revenue records and on the contrary, the name of Puttaiah had remained in the revenue records, which had never been challenged, the question of challenging the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:12822 WP No. 28685 of 2023 entries made in favour of either Puttaiah or his children by the petitioners would never arise. 14. It may also be pertinent to state here that the petitioners admittedly instituted a suit in O.S.No.302/2020 seeking partition and this suit had been dismissed albeit for non-prosecution. This also indicates that the right of the petitioners to claim a share in the property is yet to be adjudicated. In light of this particular fact the claim of the petitioners that the entries ought not to have been made in favour of Puttaiah or his children cannot be accepted at all. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, sought to put forward various arguments to the effect that the Sale Deeds upon which the contesting respondents placed reliance were void for uncertainty and therefore, the Tahsildar could not have acted upon the same. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:12822 WP No. 28685 of 2023 16. In my view, this argument is totally misconceived because the petitioners never challenged the entry made in favour of Puttaiah or his children in the revenue records though it was entered way back in the year 1993-94. 17. In the absence of any challenge made to the entry of either the name of Puttaiah or his children in the revenue records, the contention of the petitioners that the entries made in the revenue records in favour of Puttaiah were on the basis of the documents, which were void for uncertainty, cannot be entertained. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58