Karnataka High Court
Dr Tony John Akkara vs The Assistant Commissioner on 8 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:44694
WP No. 11981 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.11981 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
DR. TONY JOHN AKKARA
S/O LATE JOHN AKKARA
R/AT AKKARA HOUSE
MUSEUM ROAD
CHEMBUKKAVU THRISSUR
KERALA - 680 020
REPRESENTED BY HIS
SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
SRI S. RAGHUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S/O LATE SRI. G.N. SUBBARAYAPPA
R/AT FLAT NO.04, SNSY ARCAD
KAKAYAPPA LAYOUT,
NAGONDHALI MAIN ROAD,
IMMADIHALLI WHITEFIELD,
Digitally signed by
ARUN KUMAR M S BENGALURU,
Location: High KARNATAKA STATE.
Court of Karnataka
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VENKATESH R. BHAGAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION
BENGALURU - 577 201.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:44694
WP No. 11981 of 2022
2. THE TAHASILDAR
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
K R PURAM
BENGALURU - 560 036.
3. SRI. R. VINOD KUMAR
S/O LATE M. RAMASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT NO.201, 1ST FLOOR
ASHWIN APARTMENTS
INNER CIRCLE, WHITEFIELD
BENGALURU - 560 066.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1, R2 AND R4;
SRI. EUGENE PRABHU B., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.03.2022 IN
REV.PETITION NO.288/2019 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A
PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.4/THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU URBAN HEREIN CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED
22.05.2017 VIDE RA(BE).364/2016-7 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU
AT ANNEXURE-B AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH MUTATION
ENTRY DATED 31.05.2017 IN THE NAME OF THE
RESPONDENT NO.3 ANNEXURE-AN.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:44694
WP No. 11981 of 2022
ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the
order dated 24.03.2022 in Rev.Petition No. 288 of
2019 (Annexure-A) passed by respondent No.4,
confirming the order dated 22.05.2017 (Annexure-B)
passed by the respondent No.1 interlaia sought for
direction to the respondent-authorities to quash the
mutation entries made in favour of the respondent
No.3.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that, the
petitioner is absolute owner in the possession of the
land, having purchased the same, from one Dr.
Thottekar Govind Menon as per registered Sale Deed
26.10.1966 (Annexure-F). The vendor of the
petitioner had purchased the said property from one
Lt. Col. P.B.Kurup and his wife Mrs.A.E. Kurup, as per
registered Sale Deed 08.03.1962 (Annexure-D). It is
contended in the writ petition that, the respondent
NC: 2023:KHC:44694
No.3 herein, based on the registered Sale Deed dated
26.03.1980 (Annexure-K) said to have been made by
the said Lt. Col. P.B.Kurup in favour of the father of
the respondent No.3, and pursuant to the same, the
mutation entries have been made in favour of the
respondent No.3 and same was challenged before the
respondent 1 herein, and the respondent No.1 herein
ordered in favour of the respondent No.3, and feeling
aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has presented
the Revision Petition before the respondent No.4
herein, under 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue
Act, 1964. Respondent No.4 herein, after considering
the material on record vide order dated 24.03.2022
(Annexure-A) dismissed the Revision Petition and
feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has
presented this writ petition.
3. I have Heard Sri Venkatesh R. Bhagat,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri
NC: 2023:KHC:44694
Mohammed Jaffar Shah, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-
State and Sri Eugene Prabhu. B., learned counsel
appearing for the respondent No.3.
4. Sri Venkatesh R. Bhagat, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner contended that, as the
original owner of the land in question- Lt. Col.
P.B.Kurup and his wife, had executed registered Sale
Deed dated 08.03.1962 in favour of the vendor of the
petitioner herein and further, he contended that, Sale
Deed dated 26.03.1980 produced at Annexure-K is a
fabricated document and in this regard, complaint was
lodged before the Inspector General Of Stamps and an
enquiry has been conducted and thereafter, at the
instance of the Sub Registrar, Bommanahalli, FIR has
been registered against the respondent No.3 under
Section 82 of Registration Act, 1908. Accordingly, he
submitted that, the mutation entry made in favaour of
NC: 2023:KHC:44694
the respondent No.3, which came to be confirmed by
the respondent-authorities is not correct. He also
refers to the criminal case lodged against the
respondent No.3, based on the alleged registered Sale
Deed said to have been made on 26.03.1980
(Annexure-K) and further contended that, charge
sheet has been filed before competent Court.
Therefore, he contended that, finding recorded by the
respondent-authorities is not correct and accordingly,
sought for interference of this Court.
5. Per contra, Sri Eugene Prabhu .B., learned
counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submitted
that as the petitioner herein has filed civil suit before
the competent authority seeking declaratory relief in
respect of land in question and also sought for
declaration that the Sale Deed 26.09.1980 is null and
void and therefore, he submits that, no interference
NC: 2023:KHC:44694
is called for in this writ petition. Accordingly, sought
for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Sri Mohammed Jaffar Shah, learned
Additional Government Advocate appearing for the
respondent-State sought to justify the impugned
order.
7. In the light of the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, the
petitioner claims right in respect of the land in
question as per registered Sale Deed 26.10.1966
(Annexure-F) and the vendor of the petitioner has
purchased the same as per registered Sale Deed
08.03.1966. Suffice to say that, registered Sale Deed
dated 26.03.1980 (Annexure-K) is the one which is
being relied upon by the respondent No.3 and in this
regard, having taken note of the factual aspects on
record, I have carefully examined prayer sought for by
the petitioner in OS No.678 of 2020 before the
NC: 2023:KHC:44694
competent court, wherein, the petitioner has sought
for declaration that, he is the owner in possession of
the land in question vis-à-vis challenged the Sale
Deed dated 26.03.1980 (Annexure-K) as well as
subsequent Release Deed dated 02.06.2017. In that
view of the matter, as the disputed question of facts
are involved in this writ petition and civil suit is
pending consideration before the competent court, to
crystallize the rights of the parties, and that apart, the
criminal case is lodged by Sub-Registrar,
Bommanahalli and charge sheet is being filed before
the competent criminal court, I am of the view that,
no interference is called for in this writ petition as the
rights of the parties is yet to be adjudicated and
therefore, the finding recorded by the respondent
No.4 at paragraph 11 of the impugned judgment at
Annexure-A is to be confirmed. Accordingly, the writ
petition is dismissed. All the contentions of the
NC: 2023:KHC:44694
parties are kept open to urge before civil court. The
revenue entries are also subject to aforementioned
suit filed between the parties.
SD/-
JUDGE
SB
