Karnataka High Court
Smt Pushpa vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 April, 2024
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:14212
WP No. 10125 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 10125 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. PUSHPA,
W/O. RAMESH,
D/O. LATE S.M. KRISHAN REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT NO.798, JAYANNA LAYOUT,
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 107.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KALYAN R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
Digitally signed BANGALORE - 560 001,
by
DHARMALINGAM RERPESENTED BY COMMISSIONER.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KARNATAKA
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
BANGALORE - 560 009.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIOER,
BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISON,
KANDYA BHAVANA,
K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 009.
4. TAHASILDAR,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
K.R. PURAM,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:14212
WP No. 10125 of 2024
BANGALORE - 560 036.
5. SMT. JAYAMMA,
W/O. LATE S.M. NAYARANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
R/AT NO. 42, PARL CITY,
MUTTANALLURU VILLAGE AND POST,
SARJAPURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 099.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SESHU V, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-4,
SRI. G.V. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-5)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INIDA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.03.2024 IN R.P.NO.140/2023
PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN
DISTRICT, BANGALORE AS PER ANNX-A TO THE WRIT
PETITION AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice
for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Learned counsel Sri. G.V.
Shivakumar has entered appearance for respondent No.5.
NC: 2024:KHC:14212
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
on the basis of a release deed dated 06.05.2022, the
petitioner acquired right title and interest over 0-16
guntas land in survey No.76/1, 0-06 1/2 guntas land in
survey No.76/2, 0-24 guntas land in survey No.126/6, 0-
24.02 guntas in survey No.69 and 0-15 guntas land in
survey No.117/1, all situated at Soolikunte Village, Varthur
Hobli, Bangalore East taluk. Consequent to the acquisition
of title by the petitioner, the petitioner moved the
tahasildar seeking mutation entries in the land records.
The tahasildar declined to entertain the application and
consequently the petitioner approached the Assistant
Commissioner invoking Section 136(2) of the Karnataka
Land Revenue Act, 1964. The Assistant Commissioner
allowed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner has
acquired title over the lands in question under registered
documents and therefore she was entitled to have her
name entered in the land records in terms of Sections 128
and 129 of the Act. However, the 5th respondent herein
filed a revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner
NC: 2024:KHC:14212
and the Deputy Commissioner passed the impugned order
at annexure - 'A' setting aside the order of the Assistant
Commissioner while directing the parties to await the out
come of the suit in O.S.No.2342/2022.
3. The undisputed facts are that the lands in
question fell to the share of Sri. S.M. Narayana Reddy,
husband of 5th respondent herein in terms of judgment
and decree passed in O.S.No.205/1984. However, it is an
admitted fact that Sri. S.M. Narayana Reddy and 5th
respondent though married did not have any children. It is
the contention of the petitioner that during the life time of
the Sri. S.M. Narayana Reddy, he executed a power of
attorney dated 10.03.2005 in favour of the petitioner to
deal with the lands belonging to Sri. S.M. Narayana Reddy.
The petitioner got executed a release deed dated
06.05.2022 on the strength of the said power of attorney
executed by said Sri. S.M. Narayana Reddy. It is also not
disputed that Sri. S.M. Narayana Reddy filed the said suit
in O.S.No.2342/2022 before the Principal Senior Civil
NC: 2024:KHC:14212
Judge, Bangalore Rural District challenging the release
deed and the subsequent agreement said to have been
executed by petitioner. During the pendency of the suit
Sri. S.M. Narayana Reddy passed away on 05.12.2022 and
the 5th respondent wife of Sri. S.M. Narayana Reddy was
brought on record as the legal representative of the
plaintiff.
4. Having regard to these undisputed facts, this
Court is the considered opinion that no infirmity can be
found in the impugned order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner. When admittedly the previous khatedar
raised an objection regarding the mutation entries and
immediately thereafter a suit was filed by the khatedar
raising a challenge to the release deed which is the basis
for the claim of petitioner, it would become incumbent on
the part of the petitioner to await the outcome of the suit.
This infact, is the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner.
Having regard to the cloud cast on the documents under
which the petitioner is claiming title over the lands in
NC: 2024:KHC:14212
question and the suit is yet to be decided by the Civil
Court, the petitioner will have to await the outcome of the
said suit.
5. Consequently, the writ petition stand
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CR
