Karnataka High Court
Sri. P P Youhannan vs The State Of Government Of Karnataka on 8 February, 2024
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:5427
WP No. 6423 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 6423 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. P. P. YOUHANNAN
S/O PORINCHUKUTTY,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
R/AT NO 402, C BLOCK
OCEANUS MONAROD,
CARMELARAM POST,
KASVANAHALLI ROAD KAIKONDARAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 035.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJENDRA M S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
DHARMALINGAM
1. THE STATE OF GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BY THE SECRETARY
KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
KANDAYA BHAVAN, K G ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560001
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:5427
WP No. 6423 of 2023
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION,
KANDAYA BHAVAN, K G ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560001
4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR
ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 562106
5. SHRI MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE NARYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
6. SMT SHANTAMMA
D/O LATE NARYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
7. SHRI LAKSHMAIAH
S/O LATE NARYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RESPONDENTS 5 TO 7 ARE
RESIDING AT SARJAPURA,
SARJAPURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL
BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562106
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.C.N. MAHADESHWARAN., AGA FOR R1 TO R4
R5 TO R7 SERVED - UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING
THE ORDER DTD 31.01.2023 PASSED IN CASE NO.RT
333/2021-22 VIDE ANNX-A PASSED BY THE R-2 HEREIN
QUASHING THE ORDER DTD 23.08.2021 PASSED IN RRT (AS)
CR 109/2021-22 VIDE ANNX-B BY THE R-3 HEREIN AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:5427
WP No. 6423 of 2023
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Despite service of notice on the private respondents
No.5 to 7, there has been no representation.
2. The petitioner contends that in a suit for partition
and separate possession in O.S.No.888/2015, the
petitioner herein was defendant No.22 and the vendor of
the petitioner-Sri.Basappa was defendant No.2. While
pointing out to the judgment and decree passed by the
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Anekal, Bengaluru Rural
District, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would point
out to paragraph No.8 and submit that the trial court has
come to a conclusion that insofar as item No.1 of the suit
schedule property viz., 2 acres and 18 guntas of land in
Sy.No.297/3 of Sarjapura village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal
Taluk, is concerned, the trial court has held that item No.1
was sold in the year 2003 and again in the year 2011 in
favour of the petitioner herein. It was therefore held that
the plaintiffs cannot claim to be in joint possession of item
No.1 of the suit schedule property and since the two sale
NC: 2024:KHC:5427
transactions have already taken place, the plaintiffs will be
entitled only for a share out of the sale consideration
amount mentioned in the first sale transaction which took
place on 13.08.2003. In the conclusion, it was decreed
that the plaintiffs will be entitled for 1/5th share in
Rs.6,12,500/-.
3. It is further submitted that the judgment and
decree passed by the trial court has attained finality.
However, the private respondents herein have approached
the Assistant Commissioner with a document at Annexure-
E which is said to be a 'Arbitral Award' passed by the
Arbitration Tribunal under Section 61(1) of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996, and secured a direction at the
hands of the Assistant Commissioner directing the
Tahsildar to mutate their names in the land records in
terms of the Arbitral award. Learned Counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner is not a party to the
said proceedings and it is not known as to how the arbitral
award came to be passed after a judgment and decree
was passed by the competent civil court. Nevertheless,
NC: 2024:KHC:5427
without notice to the petitioner, the Tahsildar has
proceeded to comply with the directions issued by the
Assistant Commissioner and mutated the name of the
private respondents herein while removing the name of
the petitioner from the land records. Learned Counsel
further submits that the very fact that the private
respondents have remained unrepresented shows that
they are unable to substantiate as to how they could get
their names entered in the land records contrary to the
judgment and decree passed by the civil court. Moreover,
it is submitted that by an interim order dated 21.04.2023,
this Court had directed the revenue authorities to maintain
status quo with regard to the revenue entries in respect of
the land in question for a period of eight weeks. The
interim order has been continued thereafter.
4. Having regard to the facts narrated hereinabove,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the revenue
authorities should have issued a notice to the petitioner
prior to the removal of the name of the petitioner from the
land records. That principles of natural justice not having
NC: 2024:KHC:5427
been followed, the impugned order cannot be sustained. If
an opportunity was given to the petitioner, the petitioner
would have brought to the notice of the revenue
authorities, the judgment and decree passed by the civil
court. The genuinity of the arbitral award would also have
been exposed if an opportunity was given to the
petitioner.
5. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned orders at Annexure-A dated
31.01.2023 and Annexure-B dated 23.08.2021, are hereby
quashed and set aside. The respondent-Tahsildar, Anekal
Taluk is hereby directed to restore the revenue entries as
it was prior to the passing of the impugned orders. The
entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as
possible and at any rate within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Ordered accordingly.
6. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DL
