Karnataka High Court
Sri Krishnoji Rao vs The Deputy Commissioner on 16 June, 2022
Bench: N S Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
W.P.No.3414/2013(KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
SRI KRISHNOJI RAO
S/O LATE M.H.GIRIMAJI RAO
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
R/A. K.G. HALLI
OPP. PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE
NAGAWARA MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE-560045
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIKHAR AHMED, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DIST
BANGALORE-560001
2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION
BANGALORE-560001
3. THE THASILDAR
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
K R PURAM
BANGALORE-560001
4. SRI P BABU
S/O LATE PADMANABHA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
2
R/O NO.671, "PREM NIVAS"
GRAPE GARDEN
KAMMANAHALLI
ST. THOMAS TOWN POST
BANGALORE-560084
5. SRI S M VENKATASHAMAPPA
S/O M MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
(SINCE DEAD BY LRs
VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 30.10.2015)
5A RAMAKKA
W/O LATE VENKATASHAMAPPA S.M.
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
5B PARVATHAMMA
W/O RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
5C UDAY KUMAR
S/O LATE VENKATASHAMAPPA S.M.
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
5D RAMADEVI
W/O MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
5E RAMACHANDRAPPA
S/O LATE VENKATASHAMAPPA S.M.
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
5F MURLIDHAR
S/O LATE VENKATASHAMAPPA S.M.
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
5G AMBRISH
S/O LATE VENKATASHAMAPPA S.M.
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
5H NARESH
3
S/O LATE VENKATASHAMAPPA S.M.
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
ALL ARE R/A NO.52,
SORAHUNASE VILLAGE & POST,
VARTHUR WARD NO.149,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK-560087.
6 SMT DEKAMMA
W/O LATE SHIKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS
7. SRI RAJA RAO
S/O LATE M H GIRIMAJI RAO
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
8. SRI CHANDOJI RAO
S/O LATE M H GIRIMAJI RAO
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
9. SRI NARAYANA RAO
S/O LATE M H GIRIMAJI RAO
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
10. SMT GOWRAMMA
D/O KENCHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESPONDENTS 6 TO 10 ARE
R/O BYRATHI VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK-560021
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D.S. SHIVANANDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. MANJUNATHA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. K.S. NARAYANASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R5(A-H);
R6 TO R10 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
VIDE ORDER DATED 29.01.2013 SERVICE OF NOTICE
TO R7 TO R9 IS DISPENSED WITH)
4
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED DY. COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DIST. R1 IN RP NO.179/10-11 DATED 21.8.12
VIDE ANNX-E AS THE SAME IS IMPUGNED PERVERSE AND
CAPRICIOUS AND IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE AND
DIRECT THE LOWER REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER
THE CASE OF THE RIVAL PARTIES AND TO PASS SUITABLE
ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE PASSED BY THE COMPETENT CIVIL COURTS IN THIS
REGARD, AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Sri S.M.Venkatashamappa, the 5th respondent herein,
initiated proceedings before the Tahsildar for rectification of
entries in the pahani relating to Sy.No.111 measuring 4 acres
33 guntas (inclusive of 27 guntas kharab) and Sy.No.112
measuring 4 acres 34 guntas situate in Byrathi Village,
Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk.
2. The Tahsildar proceeded to pass an order directing the
entry of certain names in the pahani, subject to the ultimate
result of pending civil suits, if any. This order was confirmed
by the Assistant Commissioner.
3. In the revision, the Deputy Commissioner, however,
has set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and
has directed removal of the names of Subbubayamma
(mother of the petitioner) and her children Krishnoji Rao
(petitioner herein), Honnoji Rao, Raja Rao (respondent No.7),
Chandoji Rao (respondent No.8), Narayana Rao (respondent
No.9) and Gowramma (respondent 10) in respect of
Sy.No.111 of Byrathi Village and enter the name of the
revision petitioner - P.Babu (respondent No.4 herein).
4. In respect of Sy.No.112, the Deputy Commissioner has
directed the names of the above mentioned persons to be
removed in the RTC on the ground that they were wrongly
entered along with the name P.Babu/revision petitioner.
5. The facts which are admitted by all the parties and
which are narrated before this Court are as follows:
(i) The land bearing Sy.No.111 measuring 4 acres 33
guntas and the land bearing Sy.No.112 measuring 4 acres 34
guntas belonged to one Munishamappa.
(ii) On 16.09.1963, Munimuttappa, second son of
Munishamappa sold 2 acres of land in Sy.No.111 in favour of
Venkatashamappa/5th respondent herein. On 25.10.1980,
Venkatashamappa sold the said 2 acres of land in favour of
Dekamma/6th respondent herein. Thus, the 5th respondent
herein by virtue of sale made by him to 6th respondent has no
subsisting interest in respect of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.111.
(iii) In respect of area retained in Sy.No.111 i.e., 2
acres 33 guntas by the family of Munishamappa, on
26.02.2005, the children of Munikempaiah (the third son of
Munishamappa) executed a Sale Deed in favour of P.Babu (4th
respondent herein).
(iv) It is stated that the family members of
Munishamappa executed a Confirmation Deed confirming the
said sale transaction in favour of P.Babu and therefore,
P.Babu acquired valid title over 2 acres 33 guntas of land in
Sy.No.111.
(v) In respect of Sy.No.112, out of 4 acres 34 guntas,
it is submitted by all the parties that an extent of 3 acres was
sold by Munishamappa in favour of Katappa under a
registered Sale Deed dated 24.08.1956. Katappa, in turn, is
stated to have sold the said 3 acres to one Jogappa under a
registered Sale Deed dated 10.04.1961. Jogappa, in turn,
had sold the said 3 acres to Subbubayamma (mother of the
petitioner) and her children under a registered Sale Deed
dated 12.11.1962.
(vi) All the counsel admit that after the sale to
Subbubayamma and her children, an extent of 1 acre 34
guntas was retained by the family of Munishamappa.
However, on 23.07.1963, the children of Munishamappa
executed a Sale Deed in favour of Munihanumakka to an
extent of 2 acres 20 guntas. Munihanumakka, in turn, had
sold the said 2 acres 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.112 to
S.M.Venkatashamappa/5th respondent herein under a
registered Sale Deed dated 14.09.1967.
6. Thus, the admitted position in the present case is, out
of 4 acres 33 guntas of land in Sy.No.111, 2 acres has been
ultimately purchased by Dekamma/6th respondent herein and
the remaining 2 acres 33 guntas has been purchased
ultimately by P.Babu/4th respondent herein. In other words,
the entire extent of 4 acres 33 guntas in Sy.No.111 has been
accounted for by the above Sale Deeds which are admitted by
the counsel for the parties.
7. In respect of Sy.No.112, out of an extent of 4 acres 34
guntas, an extent of 3 acres was sold to Katappa, who, in
turn, sold it to Jogappa and who, in turn, sold it to
Subbabayamma, mother of the petitioner and her children.
Thus, 3 acres, out of 4 acres 34 guntas is accounted for and it
belongs to Subbubayamma and her children.
8. Though an extent of 1 acre 34 guntas of land was
remaining in Sy.No.112, as per the arguments advanced, it is
stated that the children of original owner Munishamappa have
sold an extent of 2 acres 20 guntas of land in favour of
Munihanumakka and Munihanumakka, in turn, sold the said
extent to Venkatashamappa/5th respondent herein. Thus, if
an extent of 3 acres in Sy.No.112 is accounted for by the first
sale in the year 1956 in favour of Katappa and subsequent
sale in favour of Jogappa in the year 1961 and the last sale
dated 12.11.1962 in favour of Subbubayamma (mother of the
petitioner) and her children, all that was available for sale
was 1 acre 34 guntas. However, it appears that a Sale Deed
was executed in respect of 2 acres 20 guntas of land in
Sy.No.112 in favour of Munihanumakka, who had also
conveyed the same to the 5th respondent herein.
9. It is to be stated here that the revenue authorities are
bound to act in accordance with the registered instruments,
by which, title is conveyed. The authorities cannot go beyond
the registered Sale Deeds and come to a conclusion contrary
to the Sale Deeds. In that view of the matter, the revenue
authorities are bound to consider the Sale Deeds executed in
respect of Sy.No.111 and ensure that the revenue entries in
respect of 2 acres in Sy.No.111 are mutated in favour of
Dekamma/6th respondent herein or if she is not alive, in the
name of her legal representatives and in respect of the
remaining extent of 2 acres 33 guntas in Sy.No.111, the
authorities are required to enter the name of P.Babu/4th
respondent herein, who is the ultimate purchaser in
Sy.No.111.
10. Since the 5th respondent has absolutely no subsisting
interest in Sy.No.111, the plea raised by him for rectification
of entries in respect of Sy.No.111 ought not to have been
entertained by the Tahsildar and the consequential orders
passed by the authorities in respect of Sy.No.111 cannot be
sustained and they are accordingly quashed.
11. In respect of Sy.No.112, as stated above, it is the
admitted position that 3 acres has been ultimately purchased
by Subbubayamma (petitioner's mother) and her children and
as a consequence, the revenue entries have to reflect the
name of Subbubayamma and her children. However, the
issue in relation to the remaining extent in Sy.No.112 is a
vexed issue. Though 1 acre 34 guntas only was available for
sale, the children of Munishamappa have, however, sold 2
acres 20 guntas in favour of Munihanumakka and
Munihanumakka, in turn, sold it to 5th respondent herein.
Obviously, having regard to the fact that the first sale in
favour of Katappa to an extent of 3 acres of land in
Sy.No.112 was made in the year 1956, the purchasers of the
remaining extent would have to establish that they possess a
right over and above 1 acre 34 guntas. Unless this is
established by the purchasers Munihanumakka or
S.M.Venkateshamappa/5th respondent herein, their names
cannot be entered in excess of 1 acre 34 guntas of land in
Sy.No.112.
12. As a result, the impugned orders are set aside and the
revenue authorities are directed to enter the name of
Dekamma/6th respondent herein or her legal representatives
in respect of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.111 and the name of
P.Babu/4th respondent herein in respect of 2 acres 33 guntas
in Sy.No.111.
13. However, in respect of Sy.No.112, it is stated by the
counsel for the petitioner that Subbubayamma (mother of the
petitioner) had entered into a compromise along with her
children in O.S.No.5452/1991 and as per the compromise, 3
acres that Subbubayamma and her children had purchased
has been allotted to Krishnoji Rao, the petitioner herein. As a
result, the revenue authorities shall enter the name of the
petitioner in respect of 3 acres of land in Sy.No.112 and in
respect of remaining extent of 1 acre 34 guntas of land in
Sy.No.112, the revenue authorities shall enter the name of
5th respondent.
14. It is open to any of the parties, if they are so aggrieved,
to approach the Civil Court and establish their rights over the
lands purchased by them. If a decree is obtained, the
revenue entries shall abide by the same.
15. With the above observations, the writ petition is
allowed.
16. After the order was dictated, a submission was made
that the 6th respondent - Smt.Dekamma is dead and it is
necessary to take steps in respect of deceased respondent
No.6.
17. In this order, I have already held that the petitioner has
no subsisting interest in Sy.No.111 and since Dekamma was
concerned only with Sy.No.111, it would not be necessary to
take any steps in respect of Dekamma.
18. It was also stated that Sri Raja Rao, respondent No.7 is
also dead and it is necessary to take steps in respect of
deceased respondent No.7.
19. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
7th respondent has no subsisting interest inasmuch as in the
partition suit to which the 7th respondent was a party and
that the property in question was allotted to the petitioner
with the consent of the 7th respondent and therefore, he has
no interest in the subject matter of the writ petition.
20. In the light of this submission, no steps are required to
be taken in respect of respondent No.7 also.
21. It was also stated that respondent No.10 is dead and
steps are required to be taken in respect of deceased
respondent No.10.
22. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that
Smt.Gowramma (respondent No.10 herein) has executed a
Confirmation Deed confirming the sale in favour of
respondent No.4 and she also has no subsisting interest in
the subject matter of the writ petition.
23. In that view of the matter, no steps need to be taken in
respect of deceased respondent No.10 also.
SD/-
JUDGE
PKS
