Karnataka High Court
V.Ramakrishna Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:43638
WP No. 7851 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7851 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. V.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY,
S/O V.VENKATASWAMY REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
2. V. SUDHAKAR
S/O V. VENKATASWAMY REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
3. N. R. NAGARAJ REDDY
S/O RAMA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
4. R VENKATESH REDDY
S/O RAMA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
ARUN KUMAR M S
Location: High
Court of Karnataka 5. R LAKSHMANA REDDY
S/O RAMA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
6. SRIKANTH REDDY
S/O LATE N. M. VENKATARAMANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
7. V. SRINIVAS REDDY,
S/O LATE N. M. VENKATARAMANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:43638
WP No. 7851 of 2023
8. V MANJUNATHA REDDY
S/O LATE N. M. VENKATARAMANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NOOSENOOR VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI,
INDLAVADI POST, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU - 562106.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. Y.R.SADASIVA REDDY ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. RAHUL S REDDY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
BENGALURU - 560001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION,
BENGALURU - 560001.
4. THE SPECIAL TASILDHAR
ANEKAL TALUK,
ANEKAL, BANGALORE - 562106.
5. SMT. ANKAMMA,
W/O SANJEEVA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:43638
WP No. 7851 of 2023
6. S. SRINIVAS REDDY
S/O SANJEEVA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
7. S NAGARAJ REDDY @ NAGESH REDDY
S/O SANJEEVA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
8. S MANJUNATH REDDY
S/O SANJEEVA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RES.NO.5 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT
NOOSENOOR VILLAGE,
JIGANI HOBLI,
INDLAVADI POST, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU - 562106.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISH A.S., AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. V.SRINIVAS., ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R8)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 20.07.2022 PASSED BY R3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
IN CASE NO.RA(A) 257/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-P AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing
the order dated 20.07.2022 (Annexure-P) passed by
NC: 2023:KHC:43638
respondent No.3 and order dated 04.03.2023
(Annexure-Q) passed by respondent No.2, rejecting the
petition filed by the petitioners.
3. Heard Sri Y.R.Sadasiva Reddy, learned Senior
counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri Harish A.S,
learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for
respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri V.Srinivas, learned counsel
appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 8.
4. Sri Y.R.Sadasiva Reddy learned Senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners invited the attention of the
Court to order dated 08.07.2019 in WP No.10584/2018
and WP No.11803/2018 (KLR-RES)(Annexure-M) and
contended that this Court, after hearing the parties
remitted the matter to respondent No.4 to consider the
transaction made pursuant to the sale deeds alleged to
have been made by the parties and respondent No.4 was
further directed to consider the case of the parties on
merits. He further contended that after remitting the
matter by this Court, respondent No.4 herein has passed
NC: 2023:KHC:43638
an order dated 11.03.2020 (Annexure-N), demarcating the
extent of the land by the parties. He also submitted that
the contesting respondents have questioned the order
produced at Annexure-N before respondent No.3 herein
and respondent No.3 herein after considering the material
on record, erroneously remitted the matter to respondent
No.4 herein for fresh enquiry and it is contended by the
learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that
the said aspect has been confirmed by respondent No.2
herein and as such it is submitted that, the impugned
order requires to be interfered with in this writ petition.
5. It is contended by the learned Senior counsel for
the petitioners that the petitioners herein had acquired the
property as per the registered sale deed dated 10.10.1963
and therefore, the said sale deed is much before the sale
deeds made in favour of the contesting respondents herein
and therefore, there was no necessity for respondent No.3
herein to remit the matter to respondent No.4 for fresh
NC: 2023:KHC:43638
enquiry and accordingly, sought for interference of this
Court.
6. Per-contra, Sri V.Srinivas learned counsel
appearing for the contesting respondent Nos.5 to 8,
submitted that the order of remitting the matter for fresh
enquiry has been confirmed by respondent No.2 herein
and therefore, no interference is called for in this writ
petition. He also submitted that there are six suits pending
consideration before the competent civil Court and the
rights of the parties are yet to be crystallized in the said
suits and therefore, sought for dismissal of the writ
petition.
7. Sri Harisha A.S, learned Additional Government
Advocate sought to justify the impugned orders.
8. In the light of the submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in
dispute that the petitioners herein have filed the suits
before the competent civil Court in O.S.No.1244/2022,
O.S.No.1246/2022, O.S.No.1242/2022,
NC: 2023:KHC:43638
O.S.No.1248/2022, O.S.No.1243/2022 and
O.S.No.1250/2022 and the prayer made in the said suits
are relating to seeking declaratory relief by the petitioners.
9. In that view of the matter, taking into account the
fact that though the matter has been remitted to
respondent No.4 herein by this Court in WP
No.10584/2018 and WP No.11803/2018 disposed of on
08.07.2019 (Annexure-M) however, the rights of the
parties are yet to be decided by the civil Court referred to
above in the pending suits and in that view of the matter,
I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly,
the writ petition is dismissed.
10. However, the rights of the parties are subject to
the outcome of the judgment and decree that may be
made by the civil Court in the aforementioned civil suits.
11. In that view of the matter, the revenue
authorities are directed to restore the entries in favour of
the private respondents herein prior to 2012. However,
the dismissal of the writ petition shall not come in the way
NC: 2023:KHC:43638
of urging the grounds by the petitioners before the civil
Court for redressal of their grievance.
All the contentions of the parties are kept open.
SD/-
JUDGE
CH
