Karnataka High Court
Smt. Nagarathnamma vs State Of Karnataka on 13 February, 2024
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:5987
WP No. 4256 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 4256 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA,
W/O LATE A.N. SREEKANTHA,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
2. SMT. LATHA
D/O. LATE A.N. SREEKANTHA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 717, GANDHINAGAR,
BEHIND GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL,
DODDABALLAPURA TOWN,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIVEK SUBBA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
Digitally signed by SRI. V. SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
DHARMALINGAM
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA/ VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:5987
WP No. 4256 of 2024
SIT AT BEERASANDRA - 562 110.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION,
DODDABALLAPURA,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.
4. THE TAHSILDAR,
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,
DODDABALLAPURA,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.
5. SRI. LADURAM,
S/O. ABERAJ,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
6. SMT. GEETHADEVI,
W/O. LADURAM,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
7. SRI. SUMAR CHAND,
S/O. ABHERAJ,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
THE RESPONDENT NO.5 TO 7 ARE
R/AT HOUSE NO. 35,
R. K. PILLAI BUILDING,
6TH CROSS, GANDHINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 009.
8. SRI. M.C. CHANDRASHEKAR,
S/O. LATE CHIKKASIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT KUCHAPPANAPETE,
DODDABALLAPURA TOWN,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:5987
WP No. 4256 of 2024
9. SMT. SUNANDAMMA,
W/O. A. N. SHIVAKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
10. SMT. A.S. KALPANA
D/O. A. N. SHIVAKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
11. SMT. KAVITHA,
D/O. A. N. SHIVAKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
12. SMT. A. S. SAVITHA,
D/O. A. N. SHIVAKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
13. SRI. A. S. RAVISHANKAR,
S/O. A. N. SHIVAKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
14. SMT. SUPRITHA,
D/O. A. N. SHIVAKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
15. SMT. A. S. MAMATHA,
D/O LATE A. N. SRIDHAR,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
16. SRI. A. S. RAJA SUBRAMANYA,
S/O LATE A. N. SRIDHAR,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
THE RESPONDENT NO.9 TO 16 ARE
R/AT GANDHINAGAR, DODDABALLAPURA TOWN,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:5987
WP No. 4256 of 2024
17. SRI. D. S. UMAKANTH,
S/O. LATE A.N. NIRMALA,
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
18. SMT. U. MADHU,
S/O. LATE A. N. NIRMALA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
19. SMT. POORNIMA @ SUNITHA
D/O. LATE A. N. NIRMALA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
20. SRI. U. AVINASH,
S/O. LATE A. N. NIRMALA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NO.17 TO 20 ARE
R/AT NO. 65, OM 14TH CROSS,
20TH MAIN, 4TH PHASE,
J.P. NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 078.
21. SRI. A.N. NANJUNDESHWARA,
S/O. LATE A. NEELAKANTAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
22. SMT. REKHA
D/O. LATE A. NEELAKANTAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
23. SMT. RAMYA,
D/O. LATE A. NEELAKANTAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
24. SMT. SOWMYA,
D/O. LATE A. NEELAKANTAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:5987
WP No. 4256 of 2024
THE RESPONDENT NO.21 TO 24 ARE
R/AT GANDHINAGAR,
DODDABALLAPURA TOWN,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.
25. SRI. SRINIVASA MURTHY,
S/O. LATE VATHSALA,
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,
26. SRI. S. SATHYANARAYANA,
S/O. LATE VATHSALA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
27. SMT. RASHMI,
D/O. LATE VATHSALA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NO. 25 TO 27 ARE
R/AT NO. 129, 3RD CROSS,
OLD BANK COLONY, KONANAKUNTE,
BANGALORE - 560 062.
28. SMT. SANDHYA,
D/O A. N. SRIKANTH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT NO. GANDHINAGAR,
DODDABALLAPURA TOWN,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.
29. SMT. SUMAN SHAMPUR,
D/O LATE A.N. SRIKANTH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 717, GANDHINAGAR,
BEHIND GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL,
DODDABALLAPURA TOWN,
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:5987
WP No. 4256 of 2024
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. N. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R7)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) CALL FOR THE
ENTIRE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE R2 TO 4 IN REVISION
PETITION NO. 200/2022, R.A.(DB)/848/2022 AND
MRT/12/2023-24, BE PLEASED ISSUED WRIT OF CERTIORARI
OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER SETTING ASIDE/QUASHING
THE ORDERS DATED 25/01/2024 IN RP NO. 200/2022 PASSED
BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS WELL AS THE PRESENT
MUTATION ENTIRES IN MRT/12/2023-24 DATED 30/01/2024
VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to
take notice for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Sri.N.Shivakumar, learned counsel has entered
appearance for respondent No.5 by filing a caveat petition.
Respondent Nos.8 to 29 are the members of the petitioners
family, while respondent Nos.5 to 7 are the subsequent
NC: 2024:KHC:5987
purchasers, who are represented by learned counsel
Sri.N.Shiva Kumar.
2. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.Vivek Subba Reddy,
appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that two
members of the family had filed a suit in O.S.No.202/2007
seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule
properties, which include survey Nos.32/4 and 32/5 of
Dargapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk. During
the pendency of the suit, respondent Nos. 5 to 7 purchased 2
acres each in survey Nos.32/4 and 32/5 under registered sale
deeds dated 03.07.2004. The trial court dismissed the suit by
judgment dated 17.04.2007. However, in the Regular First
Appeal in RFA.No.1677/2007, a Division Bench of this Court, by
a judgment dated 11.03.2014, set aside the judgment passed
by the Trial Court and declared that defendant Nos.3, 3(a),
3(b) and 3(c) all put together, are entitled to 1/6th share in the
suit schedule properties. Similarly, other remaining surviving
sons and daughters who are legal heirs of late
Sri.A.Neelakantaiah would be entitled to 1/6th share. It was
also directed that the alienees are entitled to work out their
remedies in the final decree proceedings. Subsequently, the
NC: 2024:KHC:5987
petitioners herein approached the Assistant Commissioner,
Doddaballapura Sub-Division, invoking the Appellate
jurisdiction under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for
short), challenging the mutation entries made in
M.R.No.T6/2020-21, which was passed on the strength of the
two registered sale deeds. The Assistant Commissioner, by
order dated 26.09.2022 allowed the appeal, set aside the
mutation entry in M.R.No.T6/2020-21, and directed the
Tahsildar to mutate/ effect the katha and to enter the names of
the appellants therein along with respondent Nos.2 to 24
jointly. Aggrieved respondent Nos.5 to 7 approached the
Deputy Commissioner, invoking the revisional jurisdiction under
Section 136(3) of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner passed
the impugned order dated 25.01.2024 setting aside the orders
passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Learned Senior Counsel
submits that as a consequence of the orders passed by the
Deputy Commissioner, the names of respondent Nos.5 to 7
alone will remain in the RTC when admittedly they purchased
the properties during the pendency of the suit, and there being
a direction at the hands of this Court in RFA.No.1677/2007 that
NC: 2024:KHC:5987
the alienees shall have to work out their remedies in the final
decree proceedings the parties were required to await the final
decree. Learned counsel would therefore submit that the
Assistant Commissioner was right in his decision to enter the
names of all the persons jointly, along with respondent Nos.5
to 7.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to
7 would submit that even in terms of the judgment and decree
passed by this Court in RFA No. 1677/2007, the alienees will
have to workout their remedy before the final decree
proceedings and before the final decree proceedings are
passed, the petitioner herein could not have approached the
Assistant Commissioner seeking the entry of their names in the
land records.
5. There is substance in the argument on both sides,
during the pendency of the RFA or even after the judgment and
decree were passed by this Court in RFA.No.1677/2007 the
petitioners could not have filed an appeal before the Assistant
Commissioner invoking the appellate jurisdiction under Section
136(2), without the final decree proceedings being drawn.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:5987
However, it is also important that the interests of all the parties
are protected till the final decree is drawn up. Obvious, since
admittedly respondents No.5 has executed a gift deed in favour
of his daughters, even subsequent to the orders passed by this
Court and therefore, there is all possibility of respondent Nos.5
to 7 alienating the property during the pendency of the final
decree proceedings. In that view of the matter, this Court
proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
a. The writ petition is allowed in part.
b. The impugned orders passed by the Assistant
Commissioner as well as the Deputy
Commissioner are set aside.
c. The Tahsildar, Doddaballapura Taluk and the
Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District,
are hereby directed to enter in Column No.12
of the RTC, the judgment and decree passed in
RFA.No.1677/2007 and the pendency of the
final decree proceedings in FDP.No.10/2014.
Such entries shall continue till the final decree
is drawn.
d. Thereafter, in terms of the final decree, the
persons who acquire rights over the land in
question shall be entitled to have their names
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:5987
entered in the land records. Till such time,
respondent Nos.5 to 7 and the two daughters
in whose favour gift deeds have been executed
are hereby directed not to create any third
party interest during the pendency of the final
decree proceedings.
6. At the request of learned counsel for
respondent Nos.5 to 7 and the learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioners, the trial Court is directed to conclude the
final decree proceedings as expeditiously as possible and
at any rate within a period of six months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
Ordered accordingly.
Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to
file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks.
Sd/-
JUDGE
rv
CT: BHK
