Karnataka High Court
Smt Nagamma vs The Deputy Commissioner on 12 February, 2024
Author: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:5788-DB
WA No. 1182 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR P.S.DINESH KUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1182 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NAGAMMA
W/O LATE MUNICHENNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS
2. SRI MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE MUNICHENNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
OBLAHALLI VILLAGE
NANDAGUDI HOBLI
HOSKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU - 562 122
Digitally signed ...APPELLANTS
by YASHODHA N
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI VIVEK N, ADVOCATE FOR
KARNATAKA SRI RAHUL S. REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
DISTRICT BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR
BEERASANDRA VILLAGE
KUNDANA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI - 562 110
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:5788-DB
WA No. 1182 of 2022
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION
DODDABALLAPURA
BENGALURU RURAL - 561 203
3. THE TASILDHAR
HOSKOTE TALUK
HOSAKOTE - 560 067
4. NARAYANAPPA
S/O MALLESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT KARAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE
NANDAGUDI HOBLI
HOSKOTE TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL - 562 122
5. MUNIVENKATAMMA
W/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS
R/AT OBALAHALLI VILLAGE
NANDAGUDI HOBLI
HOSKOTE TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL - 562 122
6. SUBBALAKSHMAMMA
W/O NARAYANASWAMY
D/O LATE MUNICHENNEGOWDA
R/AT ATTIVATTA
JADDI DASARADHALLI
HOSKOTE
BENGALURU RURAL - 562 114
7. VIJAYKUMAR M
S/O LATE MUNICHENNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
8. NAGESH M
S/O LATE MUNICHENNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:5788-DB
WA No. 1182 of 2022
RESPONDENT NOS.7 & 8 ARE R/AT
OBALAHALLI VILLAGE
NANDAGUDI HOBLI
HOSKOTE TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL - 562 122
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SHWETA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3;
SRI A. BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE CONCERNED
RECORDS IN W.P.NO.20298/2021 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
DATED 11.08.2022 BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard learned advocates for the parties both on delay
and merits.
2. This intra-Court appeal by the unsuccessful petitioners is
directed against order dated August 11, 2022 in
W.P.No.20298/2021.
3. Sri N. Vivek, learned Advocate for the appellants
submitted that appellants -petitioners approached the Tahsildar
for entering their names in the Revenue Records based on the
NC: 2024:KHC:5788-DB
sale deed dated June 9, 1972. Their request was considered.
In 1996, private respondents got their names entered in
respect of Sy.No.43/1 measuring 3 acres 6 guntas and
Sy.No.57/2 measuring 1 acre 18 guntas situated at
Karappanahalli Village, Nandagudi Hobli, Hoskote Taluk.
Appellants -petitioners challenged private respondents' entry in
the Revenue Records before the Assistant Commissioner in the
proceedings under Section 136(2) of the Act1. The appeal was
allowed in part. Private respondent No.4 challenged the said
order before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of
the Act. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the Revision
Petition and directed appellants to approach the competent Civil
Court. Feeling aggrieved, appellants have filed the instant writ
petition.
4. By the impugned order, the Hon'ble Single Judge has
directed as follows:
"6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the petitioners have filed a miscellaneous
petition seeking to recall the order of
withdrawal. Nevertheless, as noticed herein
above, if the petitioners seek to have their
names entered in the land revenue records, it
shall be done only after a declaration is made
by the competent Civil Court declaring the right,
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964
NC: 2024:KHC:5788-DB
title and interest of the petitioners in the land in
question. So long as such a declaration is not
obtained by the petitioners, they shall not be
permitted to approach the revenue authorities
to have their names entered in the land revenue
records. Consequently, the writ petition stands
dismissed.
Ordered accordingly."
5. Learned advocate for the appellants submitted that they
are owners of the property and names of private respondents
have been entered behind their back.
6. Learned advocate for private respondent No.4 submitted
that private respondents have purchased the property from the
original owners and appellants are in no way connected.
7. Learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents
No.1 to 3 submitted that there is a dispute with regard to title
of the property. Parties may work out their remedy before the
competent Civil Court.
8. The Hon'ble Single Judge has directed the parties to
obtain a declaration from the Civil Court. In view of the settled
position of law, we are at one with the order passed by the
Hon'ble Single Judge and this appeal does not warrant
interference.
NC: 2024:KHC:5788-DB
9. Having considered the appeal on both delay and merits, it
stands dismissed.
10. In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending interlocutory
applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and they
stand disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
BKV
