Karnataka High Court
Donnappa vs Assistant Commissioner on 7 November, 2022
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.7946 OF 2013 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. DONNAPPA
S/O MUNISWAMY,
AGE 82 YEARS,
2. MUNIYAPPA
S/O KARIYAPPA,
AGE 50 YEARS,
3. MUNIRAJU
S/O KARIYAPPA,
AGE 48 YEARS,
4. PILLAPPA
S/O KARIYAPPA,
AGE 40 YEARS,
5. YELLAPPA
SINCE DECEASED
BY HIS LRS
A) KOMALA
W/O YELLAPPA,
AGE 35 YEARS,
6. SURESH
S/O KARIYAPPA,
AGE 32 YEARS,
7. NARAYANAPPA
S/O LATE KENCHAPPA,
AGE 35 YEARS,
2
8. KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE KENCHAPPA,
AGE 33 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
KODLIPURA VILLAGE,
MAYASANDRA POST, ATTIBELE HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK -562 106.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.J.C.KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE
2 . TAHSILDAR, ANEKAL TALUK,
ANEKAL, BANGALORE CITY
3 . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU-9
4 . SRI RAMAIAH
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
A) SRI RAMANNA
S/O LATE RAMAIAH,
AGE: 65 YEARS.
B) SRI PAPANNA
S/O LATE RAMAIAH,
AGE: 50 YEARS.
C) SRI APPAJAPPA
S/O LATE RAMAIAH,
AGE: 40 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS 4(A) TO (C) ARE
RESIDING AT KODLIPURA VILLAGE
MAYASANDRA POST, ATTIBELE HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.C N MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI.G A MITHUN, ADVOCATE FOR R4(A) TO R4(C))
3
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE IN REV. PTN. NO.100/2011-12 DATED 20.10.2012
VIDE ANNEXURE-M CONFERING THE ORDER OF ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION,
BANGALORE DATED 21.6.2001 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING -
B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioners are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for
assailing the Deputy Commissioner's order dated
20.10.2012 made under Sections 136(3) at Annexure-M
which confirms the Assistant Commissioner's order dated
21.06.2001 made u/s.136(2) of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, 1964 at Annexure-J. Learned counsel for
the petitioners argues that the entry in question could not
have been made inasmuch as the same is contrary to two
sale deeds, one dated 25.06.1958 at Annexure-K and the
other dated 22.01.1970 at Annexure-L. He also draws
attention of Court to the mutation of entries earlier made
on the basis of these two sale deeds.
2. Learned AGA appearing for the official
respondents and the learned private advocate appearing for
the private respondents, oppose the Writ Petition
contending that though the survey number is a bit wrongly
mentioned, the parties have understood each other's lands
as the officials too have, going by it's description land in the
subject sale deeds by specifying the boundaries and
therefore, no grievance of the kind can be made in this
petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the private
respondents notifies to the court about the pendency of
civil suit in O.S.No.712/2007 filed by his clients wherein
petitioners' side happens to be defendants. They have
sought for declaration of title & injunction in respect of the
subject land and that the said suit has been long pending.
He also contends that, after all, the orders of Assistant
Commissioner & Deputy Commissioner shall be subject to
outcome of the said suit. So contending, they seek
dismissal of the Writ Petition.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court declines
indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
(a) The records disclose that the petitioners had sold
Sy.No.102 of the said village in favour of the predecessors
in title of the private respondents herein vide registered
sale deeds dated 25.06.1958 & 22.01.1970. The counsel for
the petitioners on being specifically asked tells the court
that the land in Sy.No.106 was allotted to his clients and he
is not in a position to say as to how his clients have derived
title to the land comprised in Sy.No.102. His explanation
that there is some material on record to show that these
two lands are different from each other, is bit difficult to
countenance. Regardless of arguable error in mentioning
the survey numbers in 1958 sale deed & in 1970 sale deed,
the description of the land with specifications of boundaries
removes all possible doubts that would otherwise arise by
virtue of wrong survey number. The Apex Court in the case
of SHUBAGA & OTHERS VS. SHUBHA & OTHERS, 2006 (5)
CTC 180, has held that in identifying the land, ordinarily,
the description with boundaries as given in the conveyance
should prevail over the survey numbers. This inarticulate
premise having animated the impugned orders, they are
not vulnerable for challenge.
(b) Petitioners' side had filed case in
K.SC.ST.25/2015-16 for voiding of two sale deeds executed
by them in favour of the vendors of the private respondents
herein and for restoration of the very same land u/s 4 of
the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. The
same has been dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner
vide order dated 29.04.2016, a copy whereof is placed on
record by the learned counsel appearing for the said
respondents. As appeal against the same is also stated to
be pending. That being the position, the title of the private
respondents thus arguably has been kept intact under the
subject sale deeds which again would be subject to
outcome of Respondents pending civil suit in
O.S.No.712/2007 and petitioners' pending PTCL appeal
before the Deputy Commissioner.
(c) The impugned orders have brought about a just
result now consistent with the order of the Asst.
Commissioner made under the provisions of 1978 Act as
mentioned above; by virtue of said order petitioners do not
have any interest in the subject property. The suit for
declaration & injunction also pends before the Civil Court in
which the petitioners happen to be some defendants; after
all, the legislative mandate contained in the Proviso to
Section 135 of 1964 Act would look after the interest of the
petitioners should they succeed in the said suit or their
appeal before the Deputy Commissioner under PTCL Act.
An otherwise position would be making the parties to enter
into the fray of shadow boxing since the orders passed in
RTS proceedings have nothing to do with the title to the
land in question.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition being
devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed & accordingly, it
is, costs having been made easy. The observations
hereinabove made being confined to disposal of the Writ
Petition, shall not influence the trial & decision making in
the subject suit of PTCL appeal.
The learned Senior Civil Judge, Anekal, before whom
O.S.No.712/2007 is pending, shall try & dispose off the
same within six months from the date a copy of this
judgment is placed on record and report compliance to the
Registrar General of this Court.
Costs made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE
cbc
