Karnataka High Court
Sri H G Jagannath vs Smt Sathyabhama on 10 January, 2024
Bench: Chief Justice, Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC
CCC No.806/2023
WA No. 1098/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
CCC No.806 OF 2023
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1098 OF 2023 (KLR-RR/SUR)
IN CCC No.806/2023:
BETWEEN:
SRI H G JAGANNATH,
S/O LATE H.S.GANESH RAO,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT NO.140, SUKRUTHI NIVAS,
5TH MAIN ROAD, ITI LAYOUT,
KATRIGUPPE MAIN ROAD,
BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU-560 085.
Digitally signed (BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED)
by SHARADA
VANI B ...COMPLAINANT
Location: (BY SRI.VIJAYA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)
HIGH COURT
OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. SMT. SATHYABHAMA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS ,
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
HASSAN DISTRICT, B M ROAD,
HASSAN-573 201.
2. SMT. MAMATHA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
THE TAHSILDAR,
BELUR TALUK, BELUR-573 115.
-2-
NC
CCC No.806/2023
WA No. 1098/2023
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDANA SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI.S S MAHENDRA.,PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1971, PRAYING TO TAKE
SUITABLE ACTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 FOR
HIS WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER OF THIS HONBLE
COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 06.04.2023, PASSED IN
WP.NO.1934/2023 (KLR-RR/SUR) PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A.
IN W.A.NO.1098/2023:
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HASSAN DISTRICT,
HASSAN-573 201.
3. THE TAHSILDAR,
BELUR TALUK,
BELUR-573 115.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
SAKALESHPURA SUB DIVISION,
SAKALESHPURA,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 134.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.S S MAHENDRA.,PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC
CCC No.806/2023
WA No. 1098/2023
AND:
1. SRI. H G JAGANNATH,
S/O LATE H S GANESH RAO,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT NO.140, SUKRUTHI NIVAS,
5TH MAIN ROAD, ITI LAYOUT,
KATRIGUPPE MAIN ROAD,
BSK III STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 085.
2. SRI. H.G. MADHAVA MURTHY
S/O LATE H S GANESH RAO,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/AT NO.526/A, 6TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS,
MSR NAGAR, NEAR M.S.RAMAIAH COLLEGE,
MATHIKERE, BENGALURU-560 054.
3. SRI. H G MADHUSUDHAN
S/O LATE H S GANESH RAO,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/AT NO.639, SANGEETHA 26TH CROSS,
POORNAPRAGNA NAGARA, UTTARAHALLI,
BSK 5TH STAGE, BENGALURU-560 061.
4. SRI.H.G.RADHAKRISHNA
S/O LATE H S GANESH RAO,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/AT NO.44, SUMANGALI, 4TH MAIN,
NEXT TO HAPPY VALLY, POORNAPRAGNA NAGARA,
UTTARAHALLI, SUBRAMANYAPURA,
BENGALURU-560 061.
5. SMT. VANI RAMANNA,
D/O LATE H S GANESH RAO,
W/O RAMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
R/AT NO.113/A, SHIVAKRUPA,
12TH CROSS, 3RD STAGE,
GIRINAGAR, AVALAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 085.
-4-
NC
CCC No.806/2023
WA No. 1098/2023
6. SMT. GAYATHRI SHARMA,
D/O LATE H S GANESH RAO,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
R/AT NO.143, PUSHPAGIRI LAYOUT,
HOSAKEREHALLI, BSK III STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 085.
PETITIONER NO.2,4, TO 6 ARE
REPRESENTED BY THEIR G.P.A. HOLDER
SRI H.G. JAGANNATH (PETITIONER NO.1)
7. SMT. M.R. HEMA W/O DATTA,
D/O LALITHA RAMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
8. M.R. ARCHANA
D/O LALITHA RAMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
PETITIONER No.7 & 8 ARE
C/O NO.140, SUKRUTHI NIVAS,
5TH MAIN ROAD, ITI LAYOUT,
KATRIGUPPE MAIN ROAD,
BSK III STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 085.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K VIJAYAKUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO A) ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL BY
SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06/04/2023 PASSED IN
WP NO.1934/2023 AND B) PASS SUCH OTHER
ORDERS/DIRECTIONS.
THIS CCC AND THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-5-
NC
CCC No.806/2023
WA No. 1098/2023
ORDER
This intra court appeal by the State & its officials call
in question a learned Single Judge's order dated
06.04.2023 whereby private respondents'
W.P.No.1934/2023 having been favoured, a direction has
been issued to consider their representation dated
12.01.2023 inter alia in terms of a judgment & decree
dated 24.12.2005 entered in O.S.No.27/1999 in respect of
22 Acres & 06 Guntas in Block No.381, New Sy.No.13 of
Hireguppe village, Madihalli Hobli, Belur Taluk in Hassan
District. Learned Single Judge has prescribed a period of
three months for compliance.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused both the appeal papers and the
original Revenue Records/Registers, we are inclined to
grant a limited indulgence in the matter as under and for
the following reasons:
(a) Firstly, there is no much dispute between the
parties that a huge land comprised in Block No.381 has
NC
been renumbered as Sy.Nos. 52, 53, 54 & 55 of Hireguppe
village. The order dated 06.01.1968 in case
No.A6.OR.635/65-66 is made by the respondent-Deputy
Commissioner apparently under Section 9 of the Mysore
(Personal & Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1955. This
provision entitles the Inamdar to be registered as an
occupant of the Inam land. Clause (i) of Section 9 inter
alia excludes gomal lands, tanks & tank beds from
registration of occupancy.
(b) The same land was the subject matter of a
Civil Court Decree dated 24.12.2005 entered in
O.S.No.27/1999 which specifically mentions Block No.381
and not the survey numbers. Section 135 of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 which assumes
relevance in the facts matrix of the case has the following
text:-
"135. Bar of suits .- No suit shall lie
against the State Government or any officer
of the State Government in respect of a claim
to have an entry made in any record or
register that is maintained under this
Chapter or to have any such entry omitted or
amended.
NC
Provided that if any person is aggrieved as
to any right of which he is in possession, by
an entry made in any record or register
maintained under this Chapter, he may
institute a suit against any person denying or
interested to deny his title to such right, for a
declaration of his right under (Chapter VI of
the Specific Relief Act, 1877); and the entry
in the record or register shall be amended in
accordance with any such declaration."
The decree obtained by the private respondent-Inamdar is
broadly relatable to this Proviso. It mandates that the
authorities have to make and update entries in the Revenue
Records concerning the subject land in terms of the decree.
Therefore, the appellants cannot refuse to make such
entries in respect of Block No.381 which is renumbered as
Sy.Nos. 52, 53, 54 & 55 of Hireguppe village.
(c) The above being said the learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for the appellants is more
than justified that the land in Sy.No.13 at least to the
extent to 22 acres & 06 guntas apparently, is a gomal land,
which aspect we have ascertained from all the original
revenue records that were produced for our perusal and
that the same were shown to learned counsel appearing for
NC
the private respondent as well. Copies of these documents
are produced with a memo as well. Such a land cannot be
the subject matter of registration under Section 9 of the
1955 Act.
(d) The above apart, there is absolutely no material
to prima facie assume that the land in Sy.No.13 is part of
the land in Block No.381. Even the aforesaid court decree
also does not derogate from this view since it mentions only
Block No.381. The vehement submission of learned
appearing for the private respondents that Deputy
Commissioner's letter dated 11.01.2023 addressed to the
Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Bengaluru
states that the land in Block No.381 comprises the land in
Sy.No.13 to the extent of 22 acres & 06 guntas, at the first
blush appears true. However, on what basis such a
statement is made is not reflected. Added, the Deputy
Commissioner has also stated "as per the report of the
Tahsildar, the proposed land is a Jodi Inam village, and as
per the RTC records Sy.No.13 is bearing a heading of
Gomala area". That is the reason why, by this letter the
NC
Deputy Commissioner has sought for clarification from the
Government in respect of the private respondents'
representation for entering their names in respect of this
land also. The entries in the revenue records enjoy
presumptive value in terms of Section 133 of the 1964 Act.
It is a matter of common knowledge that for the same land
two different survey numbers is not given. The land in
Block No.381 having been surveyed, four survey numbers
namely, Sy.Nos. 52, 53, 54 & 55 of Hireguppe village have
been granted and not Sy. No.13 which is altogether a
different land both in terms of location and area.
In the above circumstances, this writ appeal is
marginally favoured. The order of the learned Single Judge
to the extent it directs consideration of respondents' claim
for entering of their names in respect of land in Sy.No.13 of
Hireguppe village, Madihalli Hobli, Belur Taluk in Hassan
District is set at naught. However, in respect of other land,
the direction for making entries in the Revenue Records
shall be complied with by the appellants within a period of
three months. Costs made easy.
- 10 -
NC
In view of the above, the complainant's case in
CCC.No.806/2023 is disposed off with liberty to approach
the Court afresh should the jurisdictional appellants fail to
make entries in the revenue records in respect of a part of
the land at measuring 22 acres & 06 guntas in the erstwhile
Block No.381 in terms of the Deputy Commissioner's order
dated 06.01.1968 in case No.A6.OR.635/65-66 and the
Civil Court decree dated 24.12.2005 entered in
O.S.No.27/1999.
It is made clear that the complainant shall not have
any claim in respect of land in Sy.No.13 of the same
village.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Snb,KPS
