Karnataka High Court
Basappa vs The Deputy Commissioner on 26 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29518
WP No. 10287 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. 10287 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. BASAPPA
S/O GIRIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS
R/AT NO.749, 14TH CROSS,
1ST STAGE, J.P.NAGAR, BANGALORE-560037.
2. KRISHNAPPA
S/O BYRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
R/AT SHALAPURA TEMPLE ROAD,
HOSAKEREHALLI, BSK 3RD STAGE,
BENGALURU-560085.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHARATH S. GOWDA., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by AND:
SHARMA ANAND
CHAYA
Location: High Court 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
of Karnataka
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560009.
2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS,
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560009.
3. THE TAHASILDAR
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
K.G.ROAD, KANDAYA BHAVAN,
BENGALURU-560009.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29518
WP No. 10287 of 2021
4. THE TALUK SURVEYOR
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
K.G.ROAD, KANDAYA BHAVAN,
BENGALURU-560009.
5. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF
LAND RECORDS
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560009.
6. NATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
SRI LEPAKSHA,
R/AT NO.11/2, NHC COMPLEX,
2ND FLOOR, 5TH MAIN,
GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-5,
SRI. UDAY HOLLA, SR. ADV. FOR
SRI. K.VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV. FOR C/R6.)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DTD. 18.06.2019 PASSED BY THE R-1 DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DISTRICT IN REVISION
PETITION (SURVEY APPEAL) NO.4/2018 VIDE ANNX-A ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
- B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing order
dated 18.06.2019 passed by respondent No.1 in
RP.No.4/2018 (Annexure-A).
NC: 2024:KHC:29518
2. The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ
petition are that, the petitioners claim to be the owner of
the land bearing survey No.52 of Hosakerehalli village,
Bengaluru South Taluk to the extent of 2 acres stating that
the aforementioned lands were granted in favour of
petitioner No.2 as per order dated 01.09.1977 and the
copy of the Saguvali chit is produced at Annexure-B. It is
further stated by the petitioners that, respondent No.2,
being the owner of land to an extent of 2 acres executed
registered sale deed in respect of 1 acre of the land in
favour of the petitioner No.1 as per registered sale deed
dated 27.12.1995. Thereafter, the revenue entries have
been mutated in favour of petitioners as per Annexure-'D'
and 'E' respectively.
3. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the
respondent No.6 without title or interest in respect of 2
acres of land belonging to the petitioners, tried to interfere
with the same and as such, petitioners have filed
O.S.No.6934/2013 before the Civil Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:29518
4. It is further pleaded by the petitioners that the
respondent No.6 has contended before the Civil Court that
the Government has auctioned 20 acres of land in
Sy.No.52 of Hosakerehalli village on 21.10.1940 and the
auction purchaser-Siddananjappa, had purchased the land
in terms of the confirmation order dated 05.04.1941.
Thereafter, the said Siddananjappa has sold portion of the
land to one S.T.Ambedkar and his wife Gangubai.
Subsequently, the aforementioned persons have sold the
portion of lands to one P.I. Josehph and A Krishnarao and
his brother, who are sons of S.T.Amedkar as per the
mutation in RRT No.(2)CR.15/2001-02 dated 26.02.2002.
It is stated that respondent No.6 has purchased 6 acres of
land from legal heirs of S.T.Ambedkar as per registered
sale deed dated 04.12.2003. It is also stated by the
petitioners that, 6 acres of land purchased by respondent
No.6 were phoded and given new survey numbers as 2
acres 38 guntas in Sy.No.179 and 3 acres 2 guntas in
Sy.No.180, situate at Hosakerehalli Village, Uttarahalli
Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru.
NC: 2024:KHC:29518
5. It is also contended by the petitioners that, the
respondent No.6 being aggrieved by the proceedings
initiated by the Special Deputy Commissioner vide order
dated 03.12.2008, have filed WP.No.36114/2009 and this
Court by order dated 23.08.2010 (Annexure-G) disposed
of the petition with a direction to the jurisdictional
Tahasildar to identify the property based on the revenue
and survey records. Pursuant to the direction issued by
this Court, the jurisdiction Tahasildar has drawn the
sketch, with the assistance of the survey department as
per Annexure-H to the writ petition.
6. It is also stated by the petitioner that the phodi
sketch prepared at Annexure-H was questioned by the
petitioners before respondent No.5 and the respondent
No.5 vide order dated 23.07.2014 in Appeal No.54/2013-
2014 (Annexure-J), dismissed the appeal on the ground
that the land in question has been converted for non-
agricultural purpose. In the meanwhile, as the suit in
O.S.No.6934/2013 filed by the petitioners came to be
NC: 2024:KHC:29518
dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 19.03.2016.
Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed
RFA No.1611/2016 and same is pending consideration
before this Court.
7. Insofar as the proceedings before the Revenue
authorities are concerned, order dated 12.01.2018 in
Appeal No.101/2017-18 passed by the Joint Director of
Land Records questioned before respondent No.6 in RP
No.4/2018 and the respondent No.1, without granting fair
opportunity of hearing of the petitioners passed an order
dated 18.06.2019 (Annexure-A) and being aggrieved by
the same, the petitioners preferred this petition.
8. I have heard learned counsel Sri. Sharath S
Gowda, apearing for the petitioners. Sri Uday Holla,
learned senior counsel for Sri.Vijaykumar for
caveat/respondent No.6 and Sri. Harisha A S, learned
AGA.
NC: 2024:KHC:29518
9. It is contended by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner that the respondent has not
extended fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and
as such invited the attention of this Court to the order
sheet in the impugned proceedings at Anneuxre-Q. He
also contended that finding recorded by respondent No.1
rejecting the claim made by the petitioners herein solely
on the ground that the land in question has been
converted and the said finding recorded by the respondent
No.1 requires to be interfered within this writ petition.
10. Per contra, Sri. Uday Holla, learned senior
counsel invited the attention of this Court to paragraph
No.10 in O.S.No.6934/2013 produced at Annexure-K and
submitted that the grant said to have been made in favour
of the petitioners herein was cancelled and therefore,
learned senior counsel submitted that the petitioners
herein have to establish their rights over the lands in
NC: 2024:KHC:29518
question, in the appeal pending consideration before this
Court in RFA NO.1611 of 2016.
11. Learned Senior Counsel would further
emphasise that the lands in question have been converted
for non-agricultural purpose as the land itself falls within
the BBMP limits and therefore placing reliance on the
judgments of this Court in the cases of J M Narayana
and Ors. vs. Corporation of the City of Bengaluru
reported in ILR 2005 KAR 60 and Secretary to
Government, Department of Urban Development and
Ors. vs. Ningavva, since deceased by her LRs and
Ors. reported in ILR 2021 KAR 3028, and submitted
that the petitioners have worked out their remedy to prove
title in the pending appeal.
12. Learned AGA Sri. Harisha A S sought to justify
the impugned judgment for respondent authorities.
NC: 2024:KHC:29518
13. In the light of the submission made by the
learned counsel for parties, the core question to be
answered in this writ petition as to whether the land
claimed by the petitioners is overlapped with the land
purchased by the private respondent authorities as per
registered sale deed dated 04.12.2003.
14. Having taken note of the factual aspects on
record that the petitioners are claiming right in respect of
land in question as a grantee and on the other hand the
private respondent is claiming right over the property in
terms of the sale deed dated 04.12.2003 and insofar as
identification and phodi of the land in question, this Court
in WP.No.36114/2009 disposed of on 23.08.2010
(Annexure-G) at paragraph Nos.5 and 6 held as under:
"5. According to the petitioner, the grant of 8
acres of land in Sy.No.52 in favour of the
petitioner by the Government was during
January 2001 and a conversion was also
granted and apart from that there was also
exemption. The main grievance of the
petitioner is in respect of the claim made by 5th
and 6th respondents to the extent of 2 acres of
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29518
land in Sy.No.52, which according to the
petitioner, falls elsewhere. However, in the
presence of the contesting respondents, it is for
the Tahasildar to identify the property, if not
already identified, to the extent of 2 acres
based on the revenue records and survey
records. The question of petitioner and 5th and
6th respondents compromising the issues and
getting an order may not arise.
6. It is for the petitioner and the contesting
respondents to approach the Tahasildar, who
shall after expiry, ascertain the rights of each
of the parties and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law. Accordingly, petition is
disposed of."
15. Having taken note of the observation made
above, the jurisdictional Tahasildar identified the
properties based on revenue and survey records.
Thereafter, the land in question has been phodied and the
same has been challenged before respondent Nos.1, 2 and
5 and respondent No.1 by impugned order dated
18.06.2019 (Annexure-A) allowed the appeal preferred by
respondent No.5 based on the undisputed fact that the
land in question has been converted for non-agricultural
purpose in the year 2009 itself and that apart the suit
filed by the petitioners in O.S.No.6934/2013 came to be
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29518
dismissed by the trial Court as per judgment and decree
dated 19.03.2016 (Annexure-K).
16. It is also not in dispute that the said judgment
of the Trial Court has been questioned before this Court in
RFA No.1611/2016 and the civil rights of the parties is yet
to be crystallized in the above appeal. In that view of the
matter, since the land in question has been converted for
non-agricultural purpose and as such, I find force in the
submission made by the learned Senior counsel appearing
for respondent No.6 that the revenue authorities have no
jurisdiction to interfere with the converted land in
question. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition.
Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.
17. However, the parties are directed to await the
final judgment that may be passed in RFA No. 1611/2016,
pending consideration before this Court and it is open for
the parties to agitate their rights before the competent
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29518
authorities in a manner known to law in furtherance of the
judgment of this Court in RFA No.1611/2016.
18. All contentions of the parties are kept open to
urge before the pending RFA No.1611/2016 with regard to
their civil rights.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SSD
