Karnataka High Court
Sri B Boregowda vs Sri S M Puttaraju on 13 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:46488
WP NO.43916 OF 2019
C/W
WP NO.49745 OF 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.43916 OF 2019 (KLR-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.49745 OF 2019
IN WP NO.43916 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
S. VENKATESH
S/O LATE SIDDARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT NO.38, 6TH "C" CROSS,
GUTTEVBARAVESWARANAGARA,
CHIKKABANAVARA,
BENGALURU - 560 090.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H.S. HAYATH KHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
ARUN KUMAR M S 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: High BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE
Court of Karnataka
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
3. THE ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION,
KANDAYA BHAVAN,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:46488
WP NO.43916 OF 2019
C/W
WP NO.49745 OF 2019
4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
KANDAYA BHAVAN,
GANDHI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
5. S.M. PUTTARAJU
S/O LATE S.M. MALLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT NO.481, 1ST "F" CROSS,
8TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD STAGE, 4TH BLOCK,
BASAVESWARANAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 079.
6. CHINNAMMA
W/O LATE SRINIVAS
SINCE DEAD, BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE.
6(a). SRI. S. VIJAYKUMAR
S/O LATE SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT NO.158, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
10TH CROSS, BHOVIPALYA,
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM,
BENGALURU - 560 086.
7. B. BOREGOWDA
S/O LATE BETTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT NO.378, 8TH MAIN ROAD,
"A" BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 055.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. H.M. SOMASHEKARIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6(a);
SRI. S.K.V. CHALAPATHY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. ANAGHA JAYAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R7)
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:46488
WP NO.43916 OF 2019
C/W
WP NO.49745 OF 2019
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH/SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27TH MAY, 2019
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A WITH
RESPECT TO SURVEY NO.47 AND 48 OF KARIOBANAHALLI,
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK; AND
ETC.
IN WP NO.49745 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
SRI. B. BOREGOWDA
S/O LATE BETTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/AT HOUSE NO.378,
'A' BLOCK, 8TH MAIN ROAD,
2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 055.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.K.V. CHALAPATHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. ANAGHA JAYAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. S.M. PUTTARAJU
AS/O LATE MALLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT NO.481, 1ST 'F' CROSS,
3RD STAGE, 4TH BLOCK,
BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BENGALURU -560 079.
2. CHINNAMMA
SINCE DEAD, BY THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE.
2(a) VIJAYAKUMAR
S/O LATE SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.158, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
10TH CROSS, BHOVIPALYA,
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:46488
WP NO.43916 OF 2019
C/W
WP NO.49745 OF 2019
MAHALAKSMIPURAM,
BENGALURU - 560 086.
3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
KANDAYA BHAVAN,
K.G. ROAD, SAMPANGIRAM NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION,
KANDAYA BHAVAN,
K.G. ROAD, SAMPANGIRAM NAGAR,
BEGALURU - 560 009.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
KANDAYA BHAVAN,
K.G. ROAD, SAMPANGIRAM NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 009
6. JAYAMMA
D/O LATE BYRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NO.21, BHOVIPALYA,
2ND MAIN ROAD, 7TH CROSS,
RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 086.
7. P.R. GOPALAKRISHNA
S/O LATE SRI. K.N. RANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT NO.5, MARUTHI INDUSTRIAL TOWN,
PEENYA II STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 058.
8. SHWETHA K.
D/O SRI. KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.
9. SMITHA K.
D/O SRI. KRISHNA
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:46488
WP NO.43916 OF 2019
C/W
WP NO.49745 OF 2019
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS 8 AND 9 ARE
R/O NO.1016, 7TH MAIN,
VIJAYANANDA NAGAR,
NANDINI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 96.
10. B. JYOTHI
D/O LATE C.B.K. BASAVAIAH
W/O SRI. K.S. DEVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT NO.439, 17TH CROSS,
V PHASE, J.P. NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
11. SMT. B. KALA
D/O LATE C.B.K. BASAVAIAH
W/O SRI. MALLEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT NO.439, 17TH CROSS,
V PHASE, J.P. NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SOMASHEKHARIAH H.M., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2(a);
SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R3 TO R5;
SRI. MAHESH C.M., ADVOCATE FOR R6;
SRI. ARAVIND M. NEGLUR, ADVOCATE FOR R7 TO R11)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27TH MAY, 2019 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.5 VIDE ANNEXURE-R READ WITH
CORRGENDUM ORDER PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-S IN
REVISION PETITION NO.590/2017-18; AND ETC
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC:46488
WP NO.43916 OF 2019
C/W
WP NO.49745 OF 2019
ORDER
In these writ petitions, petitioners are calling in question
the order dated 27th May, 2019 and Corrigendum dated 04th
June, 2019 passed by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner,
Bengaluru Urban District. Hence, these petitions are taken-up
together and disposed of with common order.
2. In Writ Petition No.43916 of 2019, it is contended by
the petitioner that the grandfather of the petitioner-
Venkataswamy purchased the land to an extent of 3 acres and
5 acres in Survey Nos.47, 49 and 51 to 53 from one
Siddalingappa and Muniyamma as per registered Sale Deeds
dated 20th March, 1959 and 08th April, 1959. It is stated in the
writ petition that, one Venkata Bhovi had purchased land
bearing Survey No.47 to an extent of 23 acre 37 guntas and
Survey No.48 to an extent of 10 acres out of 25 acres situate at
Kariobanahalli Village, Bengaluru North Taluk from one
Mahalakshmamma as per the registered Sale Deed dated 28th
December, 1945. It is also contended in the writ petition that
the petitioner is having right over the property in question and
as such, though the petitioner is not a party before the
respondent-Authorities challenged the order dated 27th May,
NC: 2023:KHC:46488
WP NO.43916 OF 2019
C/W
WP NO.49745 OF 2019
2019 in respect of the land bearing Survey Nos.47 and 48 of
Kariobanahalli Village, Bengaluru North Taluk.
3. In Writ Petition No.49745 of 2019, it is contended by
the petitioner that, one Sri. Venkata Bhovi S/o Yella Bhovi was
owner in possession of land bearing Survey No.47 measuring to
an extent of 23 acre 37 guntas situate at Kariobanahallli
Village, Bengaluru North Taluk and on his demise, Smt.
Nallamuniyamma W/o Venkata Bhovi and another Mestri
Venkataswamy have sold the entire extent of 23 acre 37
guntas in Survey No.47 under seventeen separate Sale Deeds
in favour of various persons including to an extent of 1 acre 20
guntas in favour of one Smt. Gangamma. It is further stated in
the writ petition that the said Gangamma has sold 1 acre 20
guntas in favour of Sri. Lakshmaiah as per registered Sale Deed
dated 12th March, 1951. Subsequently, the said Lakshmaiah
executed the registered Gift Deed dated 29th April, 1974 in
favour of his sister Smt. Akkamma and her son Jayarama.
Thereafter, the revenue entries mutated in favour of said
Akkamma and Jayarama. In turn, the said Akkamma and
Jayarama had executed the Power of Attorney in favour of the
petitioner-Boregowda to sell the sites formed in the subject
NC: 2023:KHC:46488
WP NO.43916 OF 2019
C/W
WP NO.49745 OF 2019
land. It is also contended by the petitioner that the son of the
original owner Venkata Bhovi-Byrappa had filed Original Suit
No.134 of 1997 against the petitioner and others seeking relief
of declaration and permanent injunction and the said suit came
to be dismissed on 01st June, 2011. Being aggrieved by the
same, the legal representatives of Byrappa had filed Regular
Appeal No.235 of 2011 before First Appellate Court. The First
Appellate Court, by its judgment and decree dated 26th April,
2016, dismissed the appeal and as such, confirmed the
judgment and decree dated 01st June, 2011 passed in Original
Suit No.134 of 1997 and therefore, it is stated in the writ
petition that the respondent-Assistant Commissioner herein
having taken note of the fact that the said Venkata Bhovi died
during the year-1948 and thereafter, the Byrappa made an
application in IHC No.8/1993-94 after the lapse of four
decades, had dismissed the appeal preferred by the contesting
respondents Sri. S.M. Puttaraju and Smt. Chinnamma, by order
dated 26th July, 2017. Thereafter, the said contesting
respondents herein have preferred Revision Petition
No.590/2017-18 and the respondent-Deputy Commissioner,
without considering the civil dispute which had reached finality
NC: 2023:KHC:46488
WP NO.43916 OF 2019
C/W
WP NO.49745 OF 2019
in Regular Appeal No.235 of 2011, has interfered with the order
passed by the respondent-Assistant Commissioner and as such,
the Writ Petition is filed.
4. Heard Sri. H.S. Hayath Khan, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.43916 of 2019;
Sri. S.K.V. Chalapathy, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of
Smt. Anagha Jayaprakash, appearing for the petitioner in Writ
Petition No.49745 of 2019 and respondent No.7 in Writ Petition
No.43916 of 2019; Sri. Harisha A.S., learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for respondent-Authorities;
Sri. H.M. Somashekaraiah, learned counsel appearing for
respondents 5 and 6(a) in Writ Petition No.43916 of 2019 and
respondents 1 and 2(a) in Writ Petition No.49745 of 2019; Sri.
Mahesh C.M., learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.6 in Writ Petition No.49745 of 2019 and Sri. Aravind M.
Neglur, learned counsel appearing for respondents 7 to 11 in
Writ Petition No.49745 of 2019.
5. S.K.V. Chalapathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.49745 of 2019 and for
respondent No.7 in Writ Petition No.43916 of 2019 contended
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:46488
WP NO.43916 OF 2019
C/W
WP NO.49745 OF 2019
that respondent-Deputy Commissioner herein passed impugned
order having gone through the documents in respect of the
Civil Suit in Original Suit No.134 of 1997, which came to be
dismissed on 01st June, 2011 and thereafter, first appeal was
dismissed on 26th April, 2016, which has reached finality and
therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent-
Deputy Commissioner is non-est and cannot be accepted. It is
also contended by learned Senior Counsel Sri. S.K.V.
Chalapathi that, though the said Venkata Bhovi said to have
been died during the year-1948, his son Byrappa made an
application seeking succession in the said subject matter in IHC
No.8/1993 and same was properly addressed by the
respondent-Assistant Commissioner at Annexure-P, however,
the respondent-Deputy Commissioner without considering the
conclusion of the title dispute between the parties in the Civil
Court, has erroneously passed impugned order dated 27th May,
2019, which requires to be interfered with in this writ petition.
6. Sri. H.S. Hayath Khan, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner in Writ petition 43916 of 2019 argued on the
similar lines. He further contended that the petitioners
application was not considered by the Deputy Commissioner,
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:46488
WP NO.43916 OF 2019
C/W
WP NO.49745 OF 2019
while passing the impugned order dated 27th May, 2019.
Accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.
7. Sri. H.M. Somashekaraiah, learned counsel appearing
for respondents 5 and 6(a) in Writ Petition No.43916 and
respondents 1 and 2(a) in Writ Petition No.49745 of 2019
submits that, Sri. S.M. Puttaraju had purchased the land in
question through the legal representatives of Byrappa (s/o
Venkata Bhovi) and contended that, Sri. S.M. Puttaraju and
legal representatives of the Byrappa had filed Regular Second
Appeal Nos.1138 of 2022 and 1255 of 2022 against the
judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in
Regular Appeal No.235 of 2011, which is dismissed on 26th
April, 2016 confirming the judgment and decree in Original Suit
No.134 of 1997 dated 01st June, 2011. Therefore, he sought to
justify the order passed by the respondent-Deputy
Commissioner stating that the petitioners herein have no legal
right to claim in the schedule property.
8. Sri. Mahesh C.M., learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.6 in Writ Petition No.49745 of 2019 argued in
support of impugned order and submitted that the rights of the
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:46488
WP NO.43916 OF 2019
C/W
WP NO.49745 OF 2019
parties have to be decided in the Regular Second Appeals
referred to above.
9. Sri. Aravind M. Neglur, learned counsel appearing for
respondents 7 to 11 in Writ Petition No.49745 of 2019
submitted that the said respondents had purchased the sites
formed in the subject land and accordingly, supported the
contention of the petitioner-Boregowda.
10. In the light of the submission made by learned
counsel appearing for the parties and on careful examination of
writ papers, it is not in dispute that the subject land originally
belongs to Venkata Bhovi S/o Yella Bhovi in respect of the land
bearing Survey No.47 to an extent of 23 acres 37 guntas at
Kariobanahalli Village, Bengaluru North Taluk. It is also
pertinent to mention here that the land to an extent of 1 acre
20 guntas was sold in favour of one Gangamma, who in turn
sold the same in favour of one Lakshmaiah as per registered
Sale Deed dated 12th March, 1951. It is also noticed that the
said Lakshmaiah had gifted the entire extent of 1 acre 20
guntas in favour his sister Akkamma and her son Jayarama by
way of registered Gift Deed dated 29th April, 1974 and also it is
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:46488
WP NO.43916 OF 2019
C/W
WP NO.49745 OF 2019
not in dispute that the said Akkamma and Jayarama had
executed Power Attorney in favour of Boregowda. Be that as it
may be, the son of original owner Venkata Bhovi-Byrappa had
filed Original Suit No.134 of 1997 before the II Additional
Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, seeking relief of
declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the subject
matter of the land in question and the said suit came to be
dismissed on 01st June, 2011. Being aggrieved by the same,
the legal representatives of the Byrappa had filed Regular
Appeal No.235 of 2011, which came to be dismissed by the
First Appellate Court, by order dated 26th April, 2016. In the
interregnum period IHC No.8/1993 was made in favour of legal
representatives of late Venkata Bhovi and same was subject
matter in RRT(Y)CR/363/2016-17 and the Thasildar, Bengaluru
North Taluk, by order dated 30th November, 2016, cancelled
the mutation made pursuant to IHC No.8/1993-94. Being
aggrieved by the same, Sri. S.M. Puttaraju and Smt.
Chinnamma, contesting respondents preferred
RA(BN)285/2016-17 before the Assistant Commissioner,
Bengaluru North Sub-Division under Section 136(2) of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The Assistant
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:46488
WP NO.43916 OF 2019
C/W
WP NO.49745 OF 2019
Commissioner, after considering the material on record and
taking into account the fact that the rights of the parties have
been crystalised in Original Suit No.134 of 1997 and Regular
Appeal No.235 of 2011, rightly dismissed the appeal, by order
dated 26th July, 2017. The said order was erroneously
interfered with by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner,
Bengaluru Urban District in Revision Petition No.590/2017-18.
On careful examination of the order passed by the Assistant
Commissioner, the same would indicate that the Assistant
Commissioner has passed order based on the judgment and
decree passed by the Civil Court and the legal representatives
of the Byrappa have to establish their rights. Therefore, the
Assistant Commissioner rightly confirmed the order passed by
the Thasildar in R.R.T. (Y) C.R.363/2016-17. I have also
noticed that the said Venkata Bhovi said to have been died
during the year-1948 and nothing is there in the order relating
to change of Khata made till IHC No.8/1993-94. Therefore, I
am of the view that the Deputy Commissioner, by order 27th
May, 2019 erroneously interfered with the order passed by the
Assistant Commissioner, despite the rights of the parties is to
be crystalised in the competent Court. Having arrived at a
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC:46488
WP NO.43916 OF 2019
C/W
WP NO.49745 OF 2019
conclusion that the Assistant Commissioner, after considering
the material on record, rightly come to the conclusion and on
the other hand the Deputy Commissioner with a mistaken fact
on law, interfered with the order passed by the Assistant
Commissioner, I am of the view the petitioner in Writ Petition
No.49745 of 2019 has made out a case for interference in this
writ petition and the writ petition requires to be allowed.
Consequently, the rights of the petitioner in Writ Petition
No.43916 of 2019 is yet to be crystalised in the pending
Regular Second Appeals referred to above. Accordingly, the
writ petition No.43916 of 2019 is liable to be disposed of in
terms of the observation made above. I pass the following:
ORDER
1) Writ petition No.49745 of 2019 is allowed;
2) Writ Petition No.43916 of 2019 is disposed of
awaiting the result in Regular Second Appeal
Nos.1138 of 2022 and 1255 of 2022 before this
Court;
3) Order dated 27th May, 2019 read with
corrigendum dated 04th June, 2019 passed by
the Deputy Commissioner is set-aside; and
order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC:46488
WP NO.43916 OF 2019
C/W
WP NO.49745 OF 2019
RA(BN)285/2016-17 dated 26th July, 2017
confirming the order passed by the Special
Thasildar Bengaluru North Taluk In RRT
(Y)CR/363/2016-17 dated 30th November, 2016
is hereby confirmed and the revenue entries in
respect of the subject land shall be continued in
terms of the order passed by the Assistant
Commissioner, till the conclusion of the Regular
Second Appeals referred to above.
SD/-
JUDGE
ARK
