Karnataka High Court
Smt. Aarthi. B.K vs State Of Karnataka on 4 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:43569
WP No. 26109 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.26109 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. AARTHI B.K.
W/O D. GAJENDRA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NO.49,
YALUVANAHALLI VILLAGE,
VIJAYAPURA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
BANGALORE-562 135.
2. SMT. SHYAMALA
W/O VENUGOPAL,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO.124,
KEMPANNA BUILDING, BYRASANDRA,
C.V. RAMAN NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 093.
Digitally signed by ...PETITIONERS
ARUN KUMAR M S
Location: High (BY SRI. CHOKKAREDDY, ADVOCATE)
Court of Karnataka
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
BEHIND KANDHAYA BHAVAN,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:43569
WP No. 26109 of 2023
K.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 009.
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION,
KANDHAYA BHAVAN,
2ND FLOOR, K.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 009.
4. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
K.R. PURAM,
BENGALURU-560 093.
5. SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O. LATE B. R. GOPALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
6. SRI. DIWAKAR
S/O. LATE B. R. GOPALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
7. SMT. POORNIMA G.
D/O. LATE B.R. GOPALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
8. SMT. BHARATHI. B.G.
D/O. LATE B. R. GOPALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
9. SMT. YASHODAMMA
W/O. LATE BASAVARAJU B.,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
10. SRI. B. BYANNA
S/O. LATE BASAVARAJU B,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS 5 TO 10 ARE
R/AT NO.132, 7TH CROSS,
BYRASANDRA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 093.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:43569
WP No. 26109 of 2023
11. SRI. B. KRISHNAPPA
S/O. LATE BYANNA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/AT NO.46,
BYRASANDRA MAIN ROAD,
NEAR BHAGMANE TECH PARK,
C.V. RAMAN NAGARA,
BENGALURU-560 093.
12. SMT. RASHMI
W/O. LATE BHASKAR,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT KANNAMANGALA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU-562 110.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN R.P.NO.
149/2014-15, DATED 02.03.2022 AS ANNEXURE-A AND ORDER
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN RA(BE)219/2009-10,
DATED 28/04/2014 AS ANNEXURE-B, AND ORDER PASSED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.4 IN RRT(DIS)39/2008-09, DATED
28/01/2010 AS ANNEXURE-C, IN RESPECT OF SY. NO. 54/3,
MEASURING 1 ACRES 35 GUNTAS, EXCLUDING 5 GUNTAS OF
KARAB LAND, SITUATED AT BYRASANDRA VILLAGE, K.R.
PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BY ALLOWING THE
WRIT PETITION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:43569
WP No. 26109 of 2023
ORDER
Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice
for respondents 1 to 4.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing
order dated 02.03.2022, (Annexure-A) passed by the
respondent No.2 and order dated 28.04.2014, (Annexure-B)
passed by the respondent No.3 and order dated 28.10.2010
passed by respondent No.4 (Annexure-C) to the writ petition.
2. I have heard Sri Chokkareddy, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners and Sri Mohammed Jaffar Shah,
learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners that, the petitioners and the contesting
respondents herein are the grand children of late Byanna.
Grand father of the petitioners and contesting respondents had
four sons, namely, Kempanna, Gopalappa, Basavaraj and
Krishnappa and four daughters. After the death of the
Kempanna-father of the petitioners, the brothers of Kempanna
i.e. Gopalappa, Basavaraju and Krishnappa have filed
applications for transfer of khata in respect of the Sy No.54/3.
NC: 2023:KHC:43569
It is the case of the petitioners that impugned order which is
passed on 02.03.2022 is against the dead persons, namely,
Gopalappa and Basavaraju, who are the sons of Byanna died on
19.05.2012 and 22.09.2019 respectively. It is submitted by
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that, the civil
suit is pending consideration before the competent civil court in
OS No.1710 of 2008 and in OS No.2942 of 2005 and therefore,
the respondent-authorities ought not to have entered the
names of the brothers of the petitioners in the revenue records,
after the death of Byanna and accordingly, sought for
interference of this court. It is also submitted that, orders
impugned are passed against the death person i.e. Gopalappa
and Basavaraju and application filed before the respondent
No.2, to bring the legal representatives of the said dead
persons, however, same was not considered by the respondent
No.2. Without considering the application to bring the legal
representatives on record, the impugned order is passed.
Accordingly, the petitioners have sought for interference of this
court.
NC: 2023:KHC:43569
4. Per contra, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the respondent-Government sought to
justify the impugned orders.
5. Having taken note of the submission made by the
parties, it is not in dispute that, the petitioners and the private
respondents herein are the grand children of late Byanna and in
respect of the land in question, the respondent-authorities have
entered the name of the sons of the late Byanna, based on the
Panchayati Palu Patti dated 19.08.1994. It is also forthcoming
from the writ petition that, the suit is pending consideration
before the competent court in OS No.1710 of 2008 seeking
relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the
subject matter of land in writ petition. It is also forthcoming
from the writ papers that, son of the respondent No.11 has
filed OS No. 2942 of 2005 (Annexure-J) seeking relief of
partition and separate possession in respect of the land in
question. Therefore, I am of the view that that, the petitioners
have to establish their right in the suits, referred to above and
the revenue entries have to made pursuant to the outcome of
the judgment and decree that may be made in the said suits.
Therefore, I am of the view that, no interference is called for in
NC: 2023:KHC:43569
this writ petition as the rights of the parties is yet to
crystallized in the said suits. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE
SB
