Karnataka High Court

R. Lakshminarayana Reddy vs State Of Karnataka on 22 February, 2022

Bench: R Devdas

                           1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                        BEFORE

          THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS

       WRIT PETITION NO.18098 OF 2013 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN

R. LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
R/AT JARAGANAHALLI
KANAKAPURA ROAD
BENGALURU 560078                     ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI.S.K.V CHALAPATHY, ADVOCATE FOR;
    SRI.V. RAMESH BABU, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
       VIDHANA SOUDHA,
       DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
       BENGALURU -560 001

2.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
       BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
       K G ROAD
       BENGALURU- 560009

3.     THE TAHSILDAR
       BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
       KANDAYA BHAVAN, K G ROAD
       BENGALURU 560009
                          2




4.    R APPANNA REDDY
      SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

4A.   R. RAMADEVI
      W/O LATE R APPANNA REDDY
      AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

4B.   R.A ANOOP REDDY
      S/O LATE R APPANNA REDDY
      AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

      BOTH RESPONDENTS 4A AND 4B
      ARE RESIDING AT NO.29/2A,
      JARAGANAHALLI,
      KANAKAPURA ROAD
      J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU-78

5.    NEELAVATHAMMA
      SINCE DEAD BY HER LR

5A.   SAVITHRI
      W/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY
      DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF
      SMT. NEELAVATHAMMA
      AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
      RESIDING AT KRISHNA REDDY BUILDING
      JARAGANAHALLI
      KANAKAPURA ROAD, J.P NAGAR,
      BENGALURU-78.                ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.V. A.R. SRINIVASA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
    SRI. R. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 (A&B)
    & R5(A))

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE
ORDER OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS VIDE
ANNX-G AND TO CARRY OUT DURAST WORK IN LAND
                              3




BEARING SY NO.29/2C OF JARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE AND
ALLOT SEPARATE SY NOS. IN RESPECT OF THE LAND
ALLOTTED TO THE EPTITIONER HIS BROTHERS AND
SISTERS AS PER THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE SUPREME
COURT IN SPL. LEAVE PETITION [CIVIL] NOS 5207-
5212/98


     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                         ORDER

R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

The petitioner, who is a senior citizen is before

this Court having filed this writ petition on

17.04.2013, seeking a direction to the respondent-

revenue authorities to carry out the orders passed by

the Joint Director of Land Records, at Annexure 'G'

dated 06.12.2004, to carry out durasth work in

respect of Sy.No.29/2C of Jaraganahalli Village,

Bangalore South Taluk, consequent to the partition of

the properties made between the parties before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal

Nos.5207-5212/1998.

2. Learned Senior Counsel Sri S.K.V.Chalapathy,

appearing for the petitioner submits that the lands in

question were originally purchased by Sri

Nayaranaswamappa, the grandfather of the petitioner

herein, under a registered sale deed dated

07.01.1899. The lands in question have devolved

thereafter on Ramaiah Reddy, his son Appanna Reddy,

who is now respondent No.4 before this Court. In the

meanwhile, since there was a dispute raised at the

hands of the revenue authorities claiming the land in

question to be a Government land, Sri Appanna Reddy

and others filed O.S.No.5242/1990 against the State

Government and its authorities, seeking a declaration

that the suit schedule properties, including

Sy.No.29/2C is their absolute property and to restrain

the respondent-State Government and its authorities

from interfering with the peaceful possession of the

suit schedule lands. The suit was decreed in favour of

the plaintiffs; RFA No.105/1999 filed by the State

Government and its authorities was dismissed, both

on the ground of delay as well as on merits, by

judgment dated 27.11.2000. Review Petition in

R.P.No.127/2001 also was dismissed. Thereafter, the

State Government and its authorities approached the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos.8501-

8502/2002. The Special Leave Petitions were

dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits,

by order dated 11.11.2002. In the meanwhile, there

was a family partition and the original suit in

O.S.No.18/1988 was filed by one of the members of

the family seeking partition. The matter went upto

the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in SLP(C)

No.5879/1997, the parties filed compromise petition

and the suit was decreed at the hands of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in terms of the compromise petition

filed by the parties.

3. The petitioner herein approached the

respondent-authorities seeking to enter his name in

the land revenue records consequent to the petitioner

acquiring rights over 19 guntas of land in Sy.No.29/2C

of Jaraganahalli Village and to conduct phodi and

durasth work for fixing the boundaries in terms of the

compromise petition. When the respondent-Tahsildar

declined to conduct the phodi and durasth work, the

petitioner approached the Joint Director of Land

Records in proceedings bearing No.CTS(B) Appeal

No.11 & 12/2004-05. The Joint Director of Land

Records, by order dated 06.12.2004 allowed the

appeal while directing the Assistant Director of land

Records and the Tahsildar to conduct the phodi and

durasth work in terms of the compromise petition.

Nevertheless, since there was non-compliance of the

directions issued by the Joint Director of Land

Records, the instant writ petition has been filed.

4. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the

respondent-Tahsildar seems to be contending that

since the land in question is a Government land, the

petitioner or his forefathers could not have

approached the Civil Court.

5. On a pointed question put to the learned AGA,

as to whether he would support such a contention

raised at the hands of the respondent-Tahsildar, the

learned AGA submits that in accordance with law,

when there is a dispute raised at the hands of the

State Government or its authorities claiming that the

land is a Government land, then the civil suit is the

only remedy and a dispute regarding title cannot be

decided by the land revenue authorities, under the

provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, or any

other statute for that matter.

6. During the course of these proceedings, the

impleading applications were filed and the other

members of the family have come on record as party

respondent. However, learned Counsel Sri R.Vijaya

Kumar, appearing for respondent No.4 (a & b) and

5(a) submits that the respondents are supporting the

contention of the petitioner.

7. On hearing the learned Senior Counsel, the

learned AGA and on perusing the petition papers, this

Court finds that when a Civil Court has passed a

decree against the State Government and its

authorities and has declared the plaintiffs as the lawful

owners of the suit schedule property, the same is

binding on the State Government and its authorities.

8. The respondent-State Government and its

authorities have lost the case right upto the Hon'ble

Supreme Court. Therefore, the third respondent-

Tahsildar, is hereby warned that he cannot drive away

the petitioner without considering his legitimate claim

for entering his name in the land revenue records and

for conducting phodi and durasth work.

9. Consequently, this Court proceeds to pass the

following:

ORDER

1. The writ petition is allowed.

2. Respondent No.3 - Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, and the Assistant Director of Land Records are hereby directed to conduct the phodi and durasth work in respect of the lands acquired by the petitioner and the other respondents in terms of the compromise petition filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and decreed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in terms of the compromise petition and enter the names of the petitioner, the other respondents in accordance with their legitimate entitlement under the compromise petition.

3. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the third respondent- Tahsildar, shall be liable to pay costs out of his pocket and to face contempt proceedings at the hands of this Court.