Varalakshmamma vs The Deputy Commissioner
2024 Latest Caselaw 18717 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Varalakshmamma vs The Deputy Commissioner on 26 July, 2024

                                                      -1-
                                                                NC: 2024:KHC:29608
                                                              WP NO.9736 OF 2021




                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                                  DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

                                                 BEFORE
                                THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
                              WRIT PETITION NO.9736 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)

                       BETWEEN:

                       1.    VARALAKSHMAMMA
                             SINCE DECEASED BY LR'S.
                             PETITIONERS 2 TO 5 ARE LR'S OF
                             DECEASED PETITIONER NO.1.

                       2.    SRI. AMBARISH
                             S/O LATE H.N. VENKATESH REDDY
                             AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.

                       3.    SRI. RAJANNA
                             S/O LATE H.N. VENKATESH REDDY
                             AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.

                       4.    SMT. JYOTHI
                             D/O LATE H.N. VENKATESH REDDY
                             AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
Digitally signed by
SHARMA ANAND
CHAYA                  5.    SRI. K.V. GURUMURTHY
Location: High Court
of Karnataka                 S/O LATE H.N. VENKATESH REDDY
                             AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.

                             PETITIONERS 2 TO 5 ARE
                             R/O NO.121, 1ST CROSS,
                             KUNDALAHALLI,
                             DODDANEKKUNDI,
                             BENGALURU - 560 037.
                                                                    ...PETITIONERS
                       (BY SRI. SEENAPPA K., ADVOCATE)
                            -2-
                                       NC: 2024:KHC:29608
                                     WP NO.9736 OF 2021




AND:

1.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
     D.C. OFFICE,
     K.G. ROAD,
     BENGALURU - 560 009.

2.   THE ASSISTANT COMMISISOENR
     BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION,
     KANDAYA BHAVAN,
     K.G. ROAD,
     BENGALURU - 560 009.

3.   THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR
     BANGALURU EAST TALUK,
     DIESEL SHED ROAD,
     KRISHNARAJAPURAM,
     BANGALURU - 560 036.

4.   SMT. A. VANI
     W/O DR. B.V. DEVARS
     AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
     R/AT NO.3777, 13TH CROSS,
     BANASHANKARI II STAGE,
     BANGALURU - 560 070.

5.   SMT. MANJULA
     W/O C.S. SHANKAR
     AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
     R/AT NO.115/3, ITC MAIN ROAD,
     KUNDALAHALLI,
     BANGALURU - 560 037.

6.   SMT. A. RANJITHA
     W/O A.M. GOPALAKRISHNA REDDY
     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
     R/AT NO.115/3, ITC MAIN ROAD,
     KUNDALAHALLI,
     BENGALURU - 560 037.
                           -3-
                                        NC: 2024:KHC:29608
                                      WP NO.9736 OF 2021




7.   SRI GIRISH @ GIRISH ANAND
     S/O LATE H.N. ANANDARAMA REDDY
     AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
     R/AT NO.14, ORCHID WOODS,
     RYAN SCHOOL ROAD,
     BROOKE FIELDS BACKSIDE,
     KUNDALAHALLI,
     BENGALURU - 560 037.

8.   SRI. ASHWATH
     S/O LATE H.N. KESHAVA REDDY
     AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

9.   SMT. PAVITHRA
     D/O LATE H.N. KESHAVA REDDY
     W/O RAMESH,
     AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

     RESPONDENTS 8 AND 9 ARE
     R/AT NO.102, 1ST 'A' CROSS,
     BEHIND INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,
     BEHIND BHADRA APARTMENTS,
     KUNDALAHALLI,
     BENGALURU - 560 037.
                                           ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
 SRI. M. ADINARAYANA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5;
 SRI. N.R. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE C/R6;
 SRI. M.H. SAWKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R7;
 SRI. S.P. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R8 AND R9)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN
REVISION PETITION NO.107/2018 DATED 18TH FEBRUARY,
2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-L; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30TH
OCTOBER, 2012, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN R.A.
NO.181/2001-02   VIDE    ANNEXURE-J;  DIRECT    THE
RESPONDENT NO.3 TO MUTATE THE NAME OF THE
PETITIONERS INSOFAR AS LAND BEARING SURVEY NO.115/3
                                -4-
                                             NC: 2024:KHC:29608
                                          WP NO.9736 OF 2021




MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 13.08 GUNTAS IS CONCERNED,
IN PURSUANCE OF THE ORDERS PASSED IN R.F.A.
NO.106/1977 VIDE ANNEXURE-B; AND ETC.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM:    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

                         ORAL ORDER

In this writ petition, petitioners are assailing order dated

18th February, 2020 (Annexure-L) passed by the respondent

No.1 in Revision Petition No.107/2018 and order dated 30th

October, 2012 (Annexure-J) passed by the respondent No.2 in

R.A. No.181/2001-02; inter alia sought for a direction to the

respondent No.3 to mutate the name of the petitioners in

respect of land in question in terms of the judgment and decree

passed by this Court in Regular First Appeal No.106 of 1977

(Annexure-B).

2. The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition

are that the land bearing Survey No.115/3 measuring to an

extent of 1 acre 19 guntas situate at Kundalahalli Village, K.R.

Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk is a joint family property of

G. Narayana Reddy and the said property is subject matter in

the suit filed by Raghurama Reddy in Original Suit No.103 of

1975 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Bengaluru District,

NC: 2024:KHC:29608 WP NO.9736 OF 2021

Bengaluru (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court').

The Trial Court, by judgment and decree dated 24th August,

1977 (Annexure-A), decreed the suit and same is challenged by

the defendants before this Court in Regular First Appeal No.106

of 1977. This Court, disposed of the appeal on 08th June, 1982

(Annexure-B) in terms of Compromise entered into between

the parties. Pursuant to the compromise decree passed by this

Court in Regular First Appeal No.106 of 1977, petitioners herein

have made an application to the respondent No.3 to change the

mutation in favour of the petitioners and same was accepted by

the respondent No.3 as per order dated 25th January, 2002

(Annexure-H) in RRT:Dispute:29/2001-02. The said order

passed by the respondent No.3 was questioned by the

respondents 4 to 6 herein before the respondent No.2 in R.A.

No.181/2001-02 and the respondent No.2, by order dated 30th

October, 2012 (Annexure-J), set-aside the order dated 25th

January, 2002 passed by the respondent No.3. Thereafter, the

said order dated 30th October, 2012 passed by the respondent

No.2 was questioned by the respondents 8 and 9 before the

respondent No.1 in Revision Petition No.107/2018 and the

respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 18th

NC: 2024:KHC:29608 WP NO.9736 OF 2021

February, 2020 (Annexure-L), dismissed the Revision Petition

and as such, upheld the order dated 30th October, 2012 passed

by the respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner in R.A.

No.181/2001-02. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners

have presented this writ petition.

3. Heard Sri. Seenappa K., learned counsel appearing for

petitioners; Sri. Harisha A.S., learned Additional Government

Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3; Sri. M.

Adinarayana, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and

5; Sri. N.R. Nagaraja, learned counsel appearing for respondent

No.6; Sri. M.H. Sawkar, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent No.7; and Sri. S.P. Ramesh, learned counsel

appearing for respondents 8 and 9.

4. Sri. Seenappa, learned counsel appearing for

petitioners submitted that the dispute with regard to the

subject land bearing Survey No.115/3 to an extent of 1 acre 31

guntas situate at Kundalahalli Village, Bengaluru East Taluk was

the subject matter in Original Suit No.103 of 1975. He

contended that, the Trial Court, decreed the suit, by judgment

and decree dated 24th August, 1977 (Annexure-A) and same

NC: 2024:KHC:29608 WP NO.9736 OF 2021

was questioned before this Court in Regular First Appeal No.106

of 1977, whereby, the parties to the appeal have compromised

the dispute and accordingly, the compromise decree was

passed by this Court on 08th June, 1982 (Annexure-C).

Accordingly, he submitted that the respondents 2 and 3 ought

to have implemented the judgment and decree passed by this

Court in Regular First Appeal No.106 of 1977. Hence, he

sought for interference of this Court.

5. Per contra, Sri. M.H. Sawkar, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent No.7 sought to justify the order

passed by respondent No.2 dated 30th October, 2012

(Annexure-J) and order passed by the respondent No.1 dated

18th February, 2020 (Annexure-L) and submitted that the

entries have been made by the respondents-Authorities with

regard to the settled position of the parties in the subject

property. Accordingly, he submitted that the finding recorded

by the respondents 1 and 2 is just and proper, which does not

call for interference of this Court.

NC: 2024:KHC:29608 WP NO.9736 OF 2021

6. Sri. Harisha A.S., learned Additional Government

Advocate sought to justify the impugned orders passed by

learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

parties, on careful examination of the finding recorded by the

respondents 1 and 2 in the impugned orders, the same would

indicate that the subject matter of land bearing Survey

No.115/3 of Kundalahalli Village, Bengaluru East Taluk, was the

subject matter before the Trial Court in Original Suit No.103 of

1975 and same came to be decreed on 24th August, 1977

(Annexure-A). The judgment and decree dated 24th August,

1977 (Annexure-A) was questioned before this Court in Regular

First Appeal No.106 of 1977, and in the appeal before this

Court, parties have compromised the dispute and accordingly,

compromise decree came to be passed by this Court on 08th

June, 1982 (Annexure-C). In the backdrop of these aspects, on

perusal of the finding recorded by the respondents 1 and 2 in

the impugned orders, nothing has been considered by the

respondents 1 and 2 with regard to compromise decree entered

into between the parties in Regular First Appeal No.106 of 1977

and solely changed the Khata by relying upon the judgment

NC: 2024:KHC:29608 WP NO.9736 OF 2021

and decree passed by the Trial Court in Original Suit No.103 of

1975. This would makes it clear that, the respondents 1 and 2

have not considered the fact that the judgment and decree

passed by the Trial Court in Original Suit No.103 of 1975 has

been merged with the judgment and decree passed by this

Court in Regular First Appeal No.106 of 1977. In that view of

the matter, I find force in the submission made by learned

counsel appearing for the parties. Accordingly, I pass the

following:

ORDER

1) Writ Petition is allowed;

2) Order dated 18th February, 2020 (Annexure-L) passed by the respondent No.1 in Revision Petition No.107/2018 and order dated 30th October, 2012 (Annexure-J) passed by the respondent No.2 in R.A. No.181/2001-02 are hereby set-aside and matter is remanded to the respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner to consider the case of the parties on merits and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, in the light of judgment and decree dated 08th June, 1982 passed by this Court in Regular First Appeal No.106 of 1977.

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:29608 WP NO.9736 OF 2021

3) In order to avoid further delay in the matter, as the parties are represented through their learned counsels, parties are directed to appear before the respondent No.2 on 20th August, 2024 at 03.00 p.m. to enable the respondent No.2 to take decision in the matter at the earliest.

SD/-

(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

ARK