Karnataka High Court
Smt. Rajalakshmamma vs The Deputy Commissioner on 13 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46203-DB
WA No. 958 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 958 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. RAJALAKSHMAMMA
W/O SUBRAMANYA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
1. SMT. PREMA
W/O JAGADEESHA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
2. SMT. VASANTHI
W/O VENKATARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
Digitally
signed by 3. SMT. RAMADEVI
AMBIKA H B W/O PRAKASH NAIKA
Location: AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
High Court
of Karnataka 4. SMT. TARAMMA
W/O B N GOPALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
5. SMT. SHYLAJA
W/O PAPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
6. SRI R P SATHISH KUMAR
S/O K C RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46203-DB
WA No. 958 of 2024
HC-KAR
APPELLANTS ARE ALL
REP. BY GPA HOLDER
SRI S A BHARATH
S/O LATE ASHOK
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT NAGAPPA COMPLEX
3RD CROSS, GANDHI BAZAR
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK - 577 202
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PRASANNA V R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
BALARAJ ARUS ROAD
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
SHIVAMOGGA
SUB DIVISON
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201
3. THE TAHSILDAR
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201
4. SHIVAMOGGA CITY MUNCIPAL CORPORATION
B H ROAD
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
MR. A G NAGARAJA
...RESPONDENTS
(SMT.NAMITHA MAHESH B.G, AGA FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3
SRI A.V.GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT No.4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 28.05.2024 IN WP No.40236/2017 (KLR-RES)
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE
COURT AND PASS APPROPRIATE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER TO
MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:46203-DB
WA No. 958 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 28.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.40236/2017 (KLR-RES). The said petition was filed by Shivamogga City Municipal Corporation [respondent No.4] impugning an order dated 11.11.2014 passed by the Assistant Commissioner [respondent No.2] in PDA No.156/2013-14 as well as an order dated 03.11.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner [respondent No.1] in R Misc No.12/2015-16.
2. In terms of the order dated 11.11.2014, the name of the Municipal Commissioner, City Municipal Corporation, Shivamogga [the Corporation] which was entered in column No.9 of RTC in respect of lands measuring 0-27 acres falling in Survey No.17/1; measuring 1-13 acres in Survey No.17/4; and 1-18 acres in Survey No.17/5 of Urugadoor Village, Nedige Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk [subject lands] had been removed.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:46203-DB WA No. 958 of 2024 HC-KAR
3. The said order was upheld by the Deputy Commissioner [respondent No.1].
4. It is the case of the Corporation that the subject lands were acquired pursuant to the preliminary notification issued on 18.01.1954 and the final notification issued on 18.03.1954. Since the lands are vested with the Corporation, it's name was entered in the land records.
5. The appellants, set up a rival claim, tracing their title to the subject lands through one Sri K.C.Ramaiah.
6. It is material to note that Sri K.C.Ramaiah had filed a suit, being O.S No.323/1973, before the learned Munsiff at Shivamogga, inter alia, seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Corporation from interfering with the peaceful possession of the subject lands. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn. However, the same is stoutly contested. The order passed in O.S No.323/1973 is not on record. However, there is no dispute that the suit was dismissed.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:46203-DB WA No. 958 of 2024 HC-KAR
7. It is material to note that the impugned order specifically notes that the said suit had been dismissed and Sri K.C. Ramaiah had accepted that the subject lands had been acquired in accordance with law.
8. It is not disputed that thereafter, a registered lease deed dated 15.01.1974 was executed by the Corporation, whereby Sri K.C. Ramaiah was granted lease in respect of the subject lands for a period of five years. And, the same was registered with the concerned sub-registrar. The said lease was also renewed for a further period of two years, commencing from 16.01.1979. In this view there can be no dispute that the said Sri K.C Ramaiah had accepted the title of the lessor, that is, the Corporation.
9. After the lease had expired, Sri K.C. Ramaiah sought extension of the same which was rejected. In order to retain the possession of the subject lands, Sri K.C Ramaiah once again filed a suit, being O.S.No.150/1981, seeking declaration of his title and permanent injunction. The said suit was withdrawn.
10. Undaunted by the fact that he was not successful in either of the two earlier suits in asserting the title; Sri K.C Ramaiah filed yet -6- NC: 2025:KHC:46203-DB WA No. 958 of 2024 HC-KAR another suit being O.S.No.392/1984, inter alia, seeking a declaration that he is the owner of the subject lands. The said suit was dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 30.09.1997. The issues struck in the said suit included the issues as to whether Sri K.C. Ramaiah is the owner of the subject lands and whether he was in lawful possession thereof. The said issues were decided against Sri K.C. Ramaiah.
11. The trial Court held in unambiguous term that the plaintiff (K.C. Ramaiah) was not the owner of the subject lands. The said judgment also included observations to the effect that the lands belong to the defendant Municipality. Concededly, no appeal was preferred against the said judgment and the same has become final.
12. In view of the above, it is not open for the appellants to now once again claim that the subject lands were not acquired. In view of the clear findings of the Civil Court rejecting the claim of Sri K.C. Ramaiah of ownership and accepting the Corporation's ownership of the subject lands, the land records must necessarily reflect the same.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:46203-DB WA No. 958 of 2024 HC-KAR
13. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the decision of the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition filed by the Corporation and setting aside the orders dated 11.11.2014 and 03.11.2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, directing removal of the entries in the name of the Corporation in the land records in respect to the subject lands.
14. The appeal is unmerited and is, accordingly, dismissed.
15. The pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE AHB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7