Karnataka High Court
Sri Satyanarayan vs The Deputy Commissioner on 2 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:25206
WP No. 13605 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.13605 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SATYANARAYAN
S/O. LATE R. SRINIVASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
NAGARESHWARASWAMI TEMPLE,
YELAHANKA TOWN,
BENGALURU-560 064,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GPA HOLDER,
SRI. K. V. GURUPRASAD.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BADRI VISHAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KANDAYA BHAVAN,
K.G. ROAD,
Digitally signed by BENGALURU-560 009.
ARUNKUMAR M S
Location: High 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
Court of Karnataka
BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION,
KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 009.
3. TAHSILDAR
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 009.
4. SRI. Y. G. PURUSHOTHAM
S/O. LATE Y. S. GOPAL,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:25206
WP No. 13605 of 2024
RESIDING AT NO. 45,
CHIKKASANDRA BONE MILL,
BENGALURU-560 057.
5. SRI. ARASAPPA
S/O. DODDAMUNISHETTY,
MAJOR,
R/AT YELAHANKA VILLAGE,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560 064.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. PONNANNA M.B., ADVOCATE FOR C/R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH / SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07/03/2024 PASSED
BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN RP NO.144/2019, AT
(ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 24/10/2016 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN RA
(BNA) NO.180/2016-17 AT (ANNEXURE-M).
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the order dated
07.03.2024 passed by respondent No.1 in R.P. No.144/2019
(Annexure-A) an order dated 24.10.2016 passed by respondent
No.2 in R.A.(BNA) No.180/2016-17 (Annexure-M).
NC: 2024:KHC:25206
2. Heard Sri. Badri Vishal, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Smt. B.P. Radha, learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri. Ponnanna
M.B., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4.
3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and on careful examination of the writ papers would
indicate that both the authorities have arrived at the conclusion
that the matter is of civil nature and parties have to establish
their right over the land in question before competent Civil
Court. Subsequently, petitioner herein preferred suit in O.S.
No.791/2019 on the file of III Addl. Senior Civil Judge,
Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. The interlocutory
applications filed in the said suit came to be dismissed and
therefore, the plaintiff / petitioner herein preferred MFA
No.6675/2021 before this Court against the said dismissal
order. This Court remanded the matter to the Trial Court
allowing the appeal in part, by Judgment dated 05.07.2022. It
is also relevant to extract para 9 from the said Judgment dated
05.07.2022 in MFA No.6675/2021 as per Annexure-N, which
reads as under:
NC: 2024:KHC:25206
" 9. While the respondents assert title and
possession of the subject property as the legal heirs
of the admitted joint owners/brothers,
Sri. Venkatappa, Shamanna, Sri. Subbarayappa, the
appellant relies upon the terms of the Gift Deed
dated 16.4.1941 and the Rectification Deed dated
24.9.1974 from these very joint owners to assert
title to the subject property and possession
adverting to certain transfers by his mother. The
revenue records for the subject property over the
decades i.e., until the Tahsildar's order in RRT(BNA)
CR 400/2015-16 have continued in the names of the
original owners."
4. Having taken note of the findings recorded by the
respondent - authorities and the observation made by this
Court that mutation entries cannot be challenged after a
considerable period, and in that view of the matter, I find force
in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner that as the title is yet to be decided by the Trial
Court which is pending consideration before the Trial Court in
NC: 2024:KHC:25206
the above suit, I am of the view that, till then mutation entries
cannot be changed. Accordingly, I am of the view that, till the
conclusion of the aforesaid suit by the competent court, the
order dated 14.12.2016 at Annexure-K passed by respondent
No.3 cannot be given effect to. With these observations, the
Writ Petition is disposed of.
All contentions of the parties are kept open.
Sd/-
JUDGE
sac
