Karnataka High Court
Smt. Anjinamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 December, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 17969 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. ANJINAMMA
W/O LATE SAMMANDUR MUNIAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
R/AT MYLASANDRA VILLAGE
BEGUR HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560 068.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. HARISHA K.A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN /
RURAL DISTRICT
BENGLAURU-560 009.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION
KANDHAYA BHAVANA
BENGLAURU-560 009.
2
4. THE TAHASILDAR
BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION
KANDHAYA BHAVANA
BENGALURU-560 009.
5. MR. YOUSUF SHERIFF @ D. BABU
S/O DASTHAGIR SHAREIFF
NO.22/1, MILLARE TANK BOUND
ROAD
KAVERIYAPPA LAYOUT
VASANTHANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 052.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. B.S. RADHANANDAN, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER NO.LND (GOV.LND)AUCTION
CR:32/2006-07 DATED 04.12.2006 AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU
DISTRICT INSOFAR AS IT PERTAINS TO THE PETITIONER'S LAND
BEARING SY.NO.85, MEASURING 2 ACRE 26 GUNTAS OUT OF 10
ACRE 06 GUNTAS SITUATED AT MYLASANDRA VILLAGE, BEGUR
HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT AT
SL.NO.5 AS ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO LAW, AND ALL OTHER
PROCEEDINGS THERETO AND ETC.
IN THIS WRIT PETITION ARGUMENTS BEING HEARD,
JUDGMENT RESERVED, COMING ON FOR "PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS", THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing auction
notification dated 04.12.2006 (Annexure-A), issued by the
respondent No.2, insofar as land bearing Sy No.85 measuring
2 acres, 26 guntas, out of 10 acres, 6 guntas, situate at
Mylasandra Village, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore District,
interalia sought for direction to the respondents not to
dispossess the petitioner from the aforementioned land.
2. The facts in nutshell are that, it is contended by the
petitioner that, the petitioner made an application in Form
No.1 with the respondent No.4, claiming land bearing Sy
No.85 measuring 02 acres, 26 guntas, out of 10 acres, 06
guntas, situate at Mylasandra Village, Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore District (Annexure-B) and pursuant to the same,
the respondent-authorities have conducted, proceedings in
LND/SR-38/1960-61 and thereafter, issued grant certificate
dated 24.01.1960 (Annexure-D). It is further stated in the writ
petition that, pursuant to the grant, respondent No.4, has
issued notice dated 04.09.1961, directing the petitioner to
deposit the Darkasth Kimmat, (Annexure-E) and as such, the
petitioner has paid the same as per Annexure-F. It is the case
of the petitioner that, the respondent No.4, has mutated the
name of the petitioner in MR No.12/1964-65, in respect of the
subject land and RTC extracts stand in the name of the
petitioner. It is the grievance of the petitioner that, the
petitioner came to know about the auction of the subject land
by the respondent-authorities as per Annexure-A, which is
impugned in this writ petition, and immediately, made an
application, and secured the relevant documents and feeling
aggrieved by the same, petitioner has presented this writ
petition.
3. I have heard Sri Ashok Haranalli, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of Sri K. A. Harish for the petitioner; Sri
Harisha A.S. learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the respondent-Government and Sri B.S.
Radhanandan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.5.
4. Sri Ashok Haranalli, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioner invited the attention of the court to Grant
Certificate dated 24.01.1960 (Annexure-D) and contended
that pursuant to the grant made by the respondent-
authorities, revenue records are mutated in favour of the
petitioner and notice was issued by the respondent No.4, with
regard to deposit of Kimmat (Annexure-E) and also he further
submitted that the index of land shows the name of the
petitioner (Annexure-G) and as such, as the sketch is also
being prepared as per Annexure-H, with regard to land in
question, the respondent-authorities without issuing notice to
the petitioner, have auctioned the property in question as per
Annexure-A and therefore, he contended that, the impugned
auction notification produced at Annexure-A is illegal and
requires to be set aside in this writ petition.
5. Nextly, it is contended by Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned
Senior Counsel that, even assuming the things that, impugned
auction notification has been made allotting the land in
question in favour of the respondent No.5, however,
Certificate of Sale of Immovable Property was issued after gap
of 13 years i.e. on 01.07.2019, (Annexure-L) and therefore,
the said aspect would clearly establishes that, the respondent
No.5 has no legal right to claim the property in question and
accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. He also,
invited the attention of the court to the RTC extract and the
photographs to reiterate the fact that, the grant made in
favour of the petitioner cannot be nullified in view of issuance
of auction notification produced at Annexure-A.
6. Per contra, Sri B.S.Radhanandan, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent No.5 contended that, the
respondent No.5, is owner in possession of 10 acres, 06
guntas in land bearing Sy No.85 situate at Mylasandra Village,
and same was converted for residential purpose as per
conversion order dated 15.12.2015. It is hi categorical
submission that, to an extent of 02 acres, 26 guntas, which is
disputed in this writ petition, was never granted in favour of
the petitioner. He further contended that, the grant made in
favour of the petitioner as per Annexure-D, is a fictitious
document and the name of the petitioner has been inserted in
the revenue records as per Annexure-G to the writ petition.
Referring to Annexure-G, where the grant is being made as
per LND.SR.38/60-61, he contended that, there is no index of
land nor any supporting contemporary material to establish
the grant made in favour of the petitioner. In this regard, he
refers to the Endorsement issued by the respondent No.4
herein, dated 11.04.2023 and contended that, no such grant
has been made in favour of the petitioner. He also contended
that as the entire extent of 10 acres, 06 guntas in Sy No. 85
was classified as Hullubanni and therefore, the said land is a
gomal land reserved for pasturage for castle in the village and
same cannot be granted to any person muchless the
petitioner, unless same is reduced under Rule 97(4) of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to
as Rules, 1966). He further contended that, petitioner claims
to be an unauthorised occupant of land in question and
therefore, he refers to Annexure-E, notice issued by the
respondent No.4, and further contended that, the grant is
refers to made under Bagar Hukum and therefore, disputed
the grant made in favour of the petitioner. He also contended
that, the petitioner was minor at the time of issuing of grant
certificate produced at Annexure-D and as such, sought for
dismissal of the writ petition.
7. Sri Harisha A.S., learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent-Government
argued in similar lines and submitted that, the contesting
respondent was highest bidder in the auction as per
notification produced at Annexure-A and therefore, sought to
justify the claim made by the contesting respondent in respect
of the land in question.
8. In the light of the submission made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, on careful examination of
the writ papers would indicate that, the petitioner is claiming
right in respect of the land bearing Survey No.85, measuring
to an extent of 02 acre 26 guntas out of 10 acre 06 guntas
situate at Mylasandra Village, Bengaluru South Taluk as per
the alleged disputed Grant Certificate produced at Annexure-
D. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for
the respondent No.5 that, the said Grant Certificate is fake
and no other supporting contemporary documents have been
produced to establish the grant made in favour of the
petitioner. Perusal of Annexure-H would indicate that, the
basis for claiming right by the petitioner is on Bagar-Hukum
Grant. On careful examination of the Grant Certificate
(Annexure-D) would indicate that, the Grant Certificate was
issued pursuant to the proceedings under SLR-422 dated
18.07.1962. Petitioner has produced Annexure-J-Record of
Rights, Tenancy and Crop inspection would indicate as
Darkasth LND/SR-38/1960-61. I have also noticed from
Annexure-G-Darkasth Register, which refers to LND/SR-
38/1960-61, besides this, in the same Grant Register, name of
one Guruvareddy of Mylasandra as per LND SR 102/60-61 is
shown, and as such, as the contemporary records have not
been produced by the petitioner herein to establish the grant
made in her favour, I find force in the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents. It
is also pertinent to mention here that the Tahsildar, Bengaluru
south Taluk has issued notice at Annexure-E dated 07.09.1961
refers to Bagar-Hukum number BDSD ND (3) SR 38/60-61. In
that view of the matter, the petitioner has not established the
fact whether the land in question has been regularised under
Bagar-Hukum proceedings or the Grant Certificate is issued as
produced at Annexure-D refers to SLR 422 dated 18.07.1962.
In that view of the matter, as the petitioner has not made out
a case relating to grant made in accordance with law with the
supportive documents, I am of the view that, the writ petition
deserves to be dismissed.
9. Yet another ground for dismissal of the writ petition is,
as per the verifying affidavit filed by the petitioner, the age of
the petitioner was 75 years and date of grant as mentioned at
Annexure-D is 24.01.1960. On consideration of said fact, it is
clear that, the petitioner was minor as on the date of Grant
made as per Grant Certificate produced at Annexure-D and
therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner cannot be
accepted. The respondent No.5 has produced the
endorsement dated 11.04.2023 relating to the Survey No.85
bearing No.LND/SR/38/60-61, wherein, the endorsement is
issued that, such entry is not available in the Register and
therefore, as the petitioner has failed to establish the grant
made in her favour as contended in the writ petition, I am of
the view that, the respondent No.2, after obtaining permission
from the Government auctioned the property as per the
Notification dated 04.12.2006 (Annexure-A) and also perusal
of the writ papers would indicate that, the Certificate of Sale
was issued on 01.07.2019 (Annexure-L) in favour of the
respondent No.5 and pursuant to the same, the respondent
No.5 has paid Rs.4,50,00,000/- as final bid amount and same
was confirmed by the Principal Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department, Bengaluru under Section 177(1) of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Therefore, I do not find
any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, writ petition is
dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE
SB
