Karnataka High Court
Smt K S Swarnamba vs State Of Karnataka on 5 July, 2022
Bench: Acting Chief Justice, J.M.Khazi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M. KHAZI
W.A. NO.643 OF 2021 (KVOA)
IN
W.P.No.4193 OF 2021 (KVOA)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.K.S.SWARNAMBA,
AGED 85 YEARS,
(BENEFIT OF SR.CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED).
W/O SRI.SHIVARAM,
R/AT NO.1630, 3RD MAIN,
1ST CROSS, 1ST PHASE,
5TH STAGE, BEML LAYOUT,
RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560098.
2. SMT.BHAGYALAKSHMI,
AGED 67 YEARS,
(BENEFIT OF SR.CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED)
W/O LATE VENKATASWAMY,
R/AT NO. 165, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
CHAMARAJPET,
BANGALORE - 560 018.
3. K.S.BALASUBRAMANYA,
AGED 65 YEARS,
(BENEFIT OF SR.CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED),
S/O K.S.SHIVARAM,
R/AT NO.1630, 3RD MAIN, 1ST CROSS,
1ST PHASE, 5TH STAGE, BEML LAYOUT,
RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR,
2
BANGALORE - 560 098.
4. SMT.K.S.SAROJAMMA,
AGED 62 YEARS,
(BENEFIT OF SR.CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED)
W/O LATE D SHAMKUMAR,
R/AT NO.FB-60, HAL TOWNSHIP,
2ND MAIN, VIMANAPURA POST,
BANGALORE - 560 017.
5. K.S.RAVINDRANATH,
AGED 58 YEARS,
S/O SRI.SHIVARAM,
R/AT NO.32, 1ST MAIN,
GANGANAGAR EXTENSION,
BANGALORE - 560 032.
6. SRI.K.S.CHANDRAKUMAR,
AGED 56 YEARS,
S/O K.S.SHIVARA,
R/AT NO.82/1, 3RD CROSS,
PUTTASWAMAPPA ROAD,
SRIRAMPURA,
BANGALORE - 560 021.
7. SRI.K.S.GURUPRASAD,
AGED 48 YEARS,
S/O K.S.SHIVARAM,
R/AT NO.32, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
GANGANAGAR EXTENSION,
BANGALORE - 560 032.
... APPELLANTS
(BY MR.NANDA KUMAR B L., ADV.,)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE TAHASILDAR,
CHICKABALLAPURA TALUK,
CHICKABALLAPURA - 562 101.
3
3. SMT.C.K. SHANTHA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
W/O LATE M VENKATESH,
R/AT NO.2, 107, 2ND A MAIN ROAD,
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BANGALORE - 560 064.
M VENKATESH,
S/O LATE M V MUNIYAPPA,
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.
4. SRI.M.V.MUNIRAJU,
AGED 37 YEARS,
S/O LATE M VENKATESH,
R/AT NO.2,107, 2ND A MAIN ROAD,
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BANGALORE - 560064.
5. SMT.SOUMYA MUNIRAJU,
AGED 41 YEARS,
W/O M V MUNIRAJU,
R/AT NO.2,107, 2ND A MAIN ROAD,
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BANGALORE - 560064.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR.LOKESH K.M., ADV., FOR C/R3 & R5;
MR.G.KRISHNA MURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
MR.B.N.SURESH BABU, ADV., FOR C/R4;
SMT.VANI H, AGA FOR R1 & R2)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO I) SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 07/06/2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF
THIS HON BLE COURT IN WP NO.4193/2021 AND THE SAID WRIT
PETITION BE ALLOWED AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
4
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal arises from an order dated
07.06.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which
writ petition preferred by the appellants has been
dismissed. In order to appreciate the appellant's grievance,
relevant facts need mention, which are stated infra.
2. Land bearing Sy.No.267 measuring 7 acres
and 28 guntas is situate in Village Mustoor, Kasaba
Hobli, Chikkaballapura and is attached to the Village
Office-Shanbhog Service Inam Land. One
Sri.K.Srikantaiah was the Shanbhog. Sometime in the
year 1923, there was a partition between K.Srikantaiah
and M.Srikantaiah in respect of several properties as per
the decree passed by the Court. Half (1/2) share in the
properties were allotted to each of the sharers. In the said
partition, southern portion of the property was allotted to
K.Srikantaiah, whereas, northern half portion of the land
was allotted to M.Srikantaiah. Thereafter, a registered
partition deed was executed on 26.03.1962 amongst
K.Srikantaiah and his children. In the aforesaid partition,
3 acres and 33 1/2 guntas of land was allotted to
K.Subbaramaiah, son of K.Srikantaiah.
3. Aforesaid K.Subbaramaiah on 27.05.1965 sold
3 acres and 33 1/2 guntas of Sy.No.267 in favour of one
C.Narayanappa. C.N.Venkatesh viz., the son of
C.Narayanappa, after the death of his father, sold 2 acres
of land out of 3 acres and 33 1/2 guntas in favour of one
C.K.Shantha, wife of M.Venkatesh. After the death of
C.Narayanappa, his son C.N.Venkatesh sold remaining 1
acre and 33 1/2 guntas, out of 3 acres and 33 1/2 guntas
in favour of M.Venkatesh. The aforesaid M.Srikantaiah
filed an application on 13.12.1966 under Rule 5 of the
Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Rules, 1961 for re-
grant of three survey numbers including Survey No.267 -
half (1/2) share in land measuring 7 acres and 28 guntas.
Thus, it is evident that the aforesaid M.Srikantaiah got
only half (1/2) share and had sought re-grant in respect of
half share of land in Survey No.267.
4. Aforesaid M.Srikantaiah filed an application on
26.04.1968 before the Assistant Commissioner requesting
to accept 15 times Kandaya in respect of half (1/2) share
in survey No.267 of Shanbhog Inamti Land for re-grant.
M.Srikantaiah on 26.04.1968 paid 15 times Kandaya for
having granted half (1/2) share in Survey No.267 for
Shanbhog Inamti. On 29.04.1968, M.Srikantaiah and his
daughter Swarnamba, appellant No.1 have sold 3 acres 34
guntas in favour of one C.R.Krishnappa.
5. On 19.12.1983, the Tahsildar initiated suo
motu proceeding for eviction of purchasers on the ground
that the alienation is in violation of the Karnataka Village
Officers Abolition Act, 1961. The order of the Tahsildar
was challenged in an appeal under Section 3(2) of the Act,
which was dismissed on 07.02.1992. The order passed in
appeal was challenged in a writ petition before this court,
which was dismissed on 08.06.1993. The order passed by
the learned Single Judge was assailed in an intra court
appeal before this court in Writ Appeal No.3770/1995,
which was allowed and the matter was remitted to the
District Judge for fresh consideration. C.R.Krishnappa
executed gift deeds dated 26.05.1999 and 31.03.2003 in
respect of 3 acres 34 guntas and 34 guntas of land
respectively in favour of his daughter Smt.C.K.Shantha
Venkatesh.
6. Respondent No.5, K.S.Ravindranath filed an
application before the Tahsidlar for re-grant in respect of
land measuring 7 acres 28 guntas for re-grant. The
aforesaid application was rejected by an order dated
08.03.2010 inter alia on the ground that the land was
forfeited; land was sold and mutation was affected in
favour of subsequent purchaser. The Tahsildar thereafter
issued a notice on 06.03.2014 to all the parties including
the purchasers. Thereafter, the Tahsildar ordered for re-
grant to original Inamdar for the benefit of purchaser
applying the principles contained in Section 43 of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Smt.Swarnamba and
others challenged the order in an appeal before the
District Court. The aforesaid appeal was partly allowed.
Half (1/2) portion of the northern side was re-granted in
favour of appellant and her children, whereas, half (1/2)
portion situated on the southern side was granted in
favour of K.Subbaramaiah. The order passed by the
District Court was challenged in a writ petition viz.,
W.P.No.4193/2021. The said writ petition was dismissed
and the order passed by the District Judge was affirmed.
The learned Single Judge upheld the order passed by the
learned District Judge on merits and also held that the
appellants are guilty of suppression of material facts
inasmuch as transaction prior to 08.03.2010 were not
disclosed. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal
has been filed.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the learned Single Judge grossly erred in dismissing
the writ petition. It is further submitted that the learned
Single Judge ought to have appreciated the material
available on record in its correct perspective. On the other
hand, learned Senior counsel for respondent No.4 has
supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge
and has relied on a full bench decision of this court in
'SYED BASHEER AHMED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA',
ILR 1994 KAR 159 (FB).
8. We have considered the submissions made on
both sides and have perused the record. The learned
Single Judge inter alia has held that the registered sale
deed dated 27.05.1965 has not been questioned by the
appellant for last 55 years. It has further been held that in
view of the aforesaid sale deed, the appellants have no
right in respect of southern half (1/2) portion of the land
bearing Survey No.267. It has also been held that the sale
deed dated 29.04.1968 to which appellant No.1 is the
signatory along with her father has not been disclosed in
the writ petition. The appellants have not even denied the
execution of the aforesaid document in their rejoinder.
From perusal of the aforesaid sale deed, it is evident that
the appellants have become owners in respect of northern
portion of Survey No.267 of the land in question and
southern half (1/2) portion is shown as belonging to one
K.Subbaramaiah. Thus from the material on record, the
learned Single Judge has concluded that the family of the
appellant were the owners of the northern portion, which
was sold for valuable consideration vide sale deed dated
24.09.1968 and the appellants are not the owners of the
land in Survey No.267 and therefore, their claim of title
with regard to land bearing Survey No.267 is without any
basis.
9. It has further been held that respondent Nos.3
to 5 are the owners of land bearing Survey No.267 and
have acquired the title by virtue of various sale deeds
dated 27.05.1965 and 29.04.1968 and gift deeds executed
in their favour, which have not been disputed. The sale
deeds executed in their favour are valid and right to re-
grant accrues to the purchasers of the alienee in view of
the law laid down by full bench of this court in SYED
BASHEER AHMED supra.
10. The learned Single Judge has therefore upheld
the order passed by the learned District Judge. The
material on record has properly been appreciated. The
order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer
from any infirmity warranting interference by this court in
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction in this intra court
appeal.
For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any
merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
