Karnataka High Court
M/S Confident Project India ... vs The Deputy Commissioner on 14 June, 2022
Bench: N S Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION No.48055 of 2014 [KLR-RES]
BETWEEN:
M/S CONFIDENT PROJECT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,
CONFIDENT HOUSE,
No.4, BTM RING ROAD,
1ST STAGE, BTM LAYOUT,
BANGALORE - 560 068.
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR,
SRI.V.SUDHINDRANATH. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.S.RAJENDRA ADV. FOR
SRI. VIVEK HOLLA, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KOLAR DISTRICT,
KOLAR - 563 101.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D.S.SHIVANANDA, AGA.)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER DATED 10.10.2014 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR, THE 1ST
2
RESPONDENT HEREIN, IN CASE No.RA.102/2014-15
(ANNEXURE-F), & ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. It is the case of the petitioner that he had instituted
a suit against the State in Original Suit No.32 of 2011
seeking for a decree of declaration that he was the
owner of Sy.No.44 measuring 17 acres 20 guntas in
Vaggaiahana Dinne Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangarpet
Taluk and in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.253 of
Hudukula Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangarpet Taluk
measuring 20 acres. Both these lands were stated to be
non-agricultural lands.
2. The petitioner states that the Civil Court by its
judgment and decree dated 20.12.2013 held that the
plaintiff was the owner of the aforementioned lands and
the Government had no power to change the revenue
entries pertaining to the suit lands. The Trial Court also
held that the Deputy Commissioner had no power under
Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 to
exercise the inherent powers in respect of the suit
schedule properties. A consequential decree of
permanent injunction was also granted by the Trial
Court.
3. It is agreed by both the learned counsel that as
against the judgment and decree, a regular appeal is
preferred in R.A. No.110 of 2014, which is pending
consideration before the District Court and there is an
interim stay of the decree.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, notwithstanding the
judgment and decree dated 20.12.2013 passed in O.S.
No.32 of 2011, has nevertheless passed the impugned
order on 10.10.2014 holding that the lands bearing
Sy.No.44 measuring 17 acres 20 guntas and Sy.No.253
measuring 31 acres 05 guntas were Government Kharab
lands and the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation
in respect of the said lands and was required to be
evicted.
5. In my view, since the petitioner has instituted a
suit against the State and a decree has been granted in
favour of the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner could
not have passed an order in contradiction with the
judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.32 of 2011.
6. Be that as it may, since, it is the admitted case of
both the parties that the entitlement of the petitioner
over the aforementioned lands is pending consideration
in R.A. No.110 of 2014, interest of justice would be sub-
served if the order of the Deputy Commissioner is kept in
abeyance till the disposal of R.A. No.110 of 2014.
7. The order of the Deputy Commissioner shall be
subject to the ultimate result in R.A. No.110 of 2014,
which is pending consideration before the District Court.
8. Both the parties shall obviously be bound by the
decree that may be passed in R.A. No.110 of 2014 and
the revenue entries shall accordingly abide by such
decree.
9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RK
CT: SN
