Karnataka High Court
P Srinivas @ B Seena vs State Of Karnataka on 30 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30088
WP No. 3773 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 3773 OF 2016 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. P. SRINIVAS @ B. SEENA,
S/O SRI. PAPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
2. K. GOPAL,
S/O KENCHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
(DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED 03.07.2024)
ALL RESIDENT OF KULUMEPALYA,
KANNAYAKANA AGRAHARA VILLAGE,
JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562 106.
Digitally ...PETITIONERS
signed by
YAMUNA K L (BY SRI. P.D. SURANA, ADVOCATE)
Location: High
AND:
Court of
Karnataka
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY FOR REVENUE,
VEEDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE TAHSILDAR,
ANEKAL TALUK,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30088
WP No. 3773 of 2016
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT ANEKAL TOWN,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 106.
3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
BANNARGATTA POLICE STATION,
BANNARGATTA, ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 560 083.
4. DY. SUPDT. OF POLICE,
BANGALORE SUB DIVISION,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
5. K.N. SHREYAS,
S/O K.K. NAGENDRA PRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
6. K.N. TEJAS,
S/O K.K. NAGENDRA PRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
7. K.N. YESHAS,
S/O K.K. NAGENDRA PRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 7 ARE
RESIDING AT NO. 9, SHESHADRI ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. V. HARIDAS BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R7)
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
COMMUNICATION DATED 18.12.2015 VIDE ANN-C, TO THE R-3
AND ETC.,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:30088
WP No. 3773 of 2016
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The captioned petition is filed assailing the
communication dated 18.12.2015, issued by respondent
No.2-Tahsildar addressed to respondent No.3-Inspector of
Police to facilitate and hand over the possession of land in
question to respondents No.5 to 7.
2. Heard learned counsels on record and learned
AGA for the State.
3. Before I advert further on the authority of
respondent No.2 in issuing the impugned communication,
this Court deems it fit to cull out relevant paragraph of the
impugned communication, which reads as under:
" ೕ ನ ಎ ಾ ಅಂಶಗಳನು ಗಣ ೆ ೆ ೆ ೆದು ೊಂಡು ೋಂ ಾ ತ
ಕ ಯಪತ ಸಂ"ೆ#:2502/59-60, $:08/12/1959 ರ ಕ ಯಪತ ರ ಾ&'ದು&,
ಪ ( ತ ಜ*ೕನು ಸ ಾ+, ಫ.ಾ ೆ/ ಬಂ$ದು& Certificate of Sale of
Immovable Property, Apendix IX.K (Rule 9) gÀAvÉ PÉ.PÉ µÀjÃ¥sï gÀªÀjUÉ
NC: 2024:KHC:30088
G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ೊಡ1ಬ2ಾ3ಪ4ರ ಉಪ6¨sÁಗರವರು ,.ನಂ. 2410/64-
65, $:25/11/1964 ರವ, ೆ ಹ9ಾಜು ಮೂಲಕ ಹPÀÄÌ ಬಂ$ದು&, ನಂತರ
ೋಂ ಾ ತ ಹಕು/ =ಡುಗ.ೆ ಪತ ಸಂ"ೆ#:1993/65-66, $:1/10/1965
'ಡ1ಪ>, ಈರಪ>, 9ಾಜಮA.ಮತುB ಆD.EಮAಯ# ಇವರುಗಳ Gೆಸ,ನ ಮುಂ ೆ
ಕ ಮHಾ' 4-00ಎಕ9ೆ, 10-00 ಎಕ9ೆ, 10-00 ಎಕgÉ , 10-00ಎಕ9ೆ ಒಟುK 34-00
ಎಕ9ೆ ಹಕು/ ಬಂ$ದು& ತದನಂತರ ೊಂ ಾ ತ ಕ ಯ ಪತ ಸಂ"ೆ# 123,
130 ೆ/ $:10/4/1972 ರಂ ೆ ಮತುB 3602, 3603, 3604 ೆ/ $:25/1/1968
ರ 9ಾಮಚಂದ ಯ# =M ೊಶಯ# ರವ, ೆ ಹಕು/ ಬಂ$ದು& ನಂತರ ಕ ಯಪತ
ಸಂ"ೆ# 3206/72-73, $:24/5/1972 ರಂ ೆ ಾ ೇಂದ Nಾ =M ಕೃಷQ Nಾ
ರವ, ೆ ಕ ಯHಾ'ದು&, Gಾ ಕ ಯಪತ ದಂ ೆ ಕಂ ಾಯ ಾಖ ೆಗಳ
ಾ ೇಂದ Nಾ ರವರ Gೆಸರು ನಮೂದು ಇರುತB ೆ. Gಾಗೂ ಇವ9ೇ
ಹಕ/ ಾರ9ಾ'ರು ಾB9ೆ. ಸದ, ಪ ೇಶವ4 ಕ ಾ+ಟಕ ¨sÀÆ ಕಂ ಾಯ 1964 ರ
ಕಲಂ 136(3) ರ ಆ ೇಶ ೆ/ ಒಳಪಟುK ಆದ&,ಂದ ಪ ಕರಣದ 2 ೇ ೋSೕT
ಾರ9ಾದ ( ೕUHಾಸ =M VಾಪಣQ, ಕುಲು Vಾಳ# ಮತುB ಇತರರನು ಸದ,
ಪ ( ತ ಜ*ೕUಂದ Gೊರ Gಾಕಲ ¢; 18/12/15 ರಂದು ಆ ೇ(W ೆ ಸೂಕB
X ೕT ಬಂ ೋಬTB Uೕಡಲು ಸೂYW ೆ."
4. On meticulous examination of the above
extracted portion, two things emerge. Respondent No.2-
Tahsildar, referring to title documents, has usurped the
jurisdiction of the civil court in holding that respondents
are the lawful owners. Consequently directed respondent
No.3 to evict persons who are found to be in possession of
the land in question. Respondents No.4 to 7 have
admittedly filed a suit for injunction simplicitor in
NC: 2024:KHC:30088
O.S.No.356/2015, renumbered as O.S.No.8/2016, which is
documented at Annexure-E.
5. If these significant details are looked into, this
Court is of the view that respondent No.2 has exceeded in
his jurisdiction in passing the impugned communication.
The Tahsildar has no power to decide the titles of the
parties. Under the impugned communication, respondent
No.2-Tahsildar has issued a direction to respondent No.3-
jurisdictional police officer to evict the petitioner from the
land in question. This Court, in a catena of judgments, has
consistently held that the revenue authorities have no
jurisdiction to decide the right and title under the
provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for
short, 'Act'). The full bench of this Court in the case of
Smt. Jayamma and others vs. The State of Karnataka
reported in ILR 2020 KAR 1449, reiterating the law, has
held that the adjudication of right and title in respect of
properties, including agricultural lands, does not fall within
the domain of revenue officers under the provisions of the
NC: 2024:KHC:30088
Act. The impugned communication is one without
jurisdiction and therefore, the same is liable to be set
aside by this Court.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the
following;
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed;
ii. The impugned communication dated
18.12.2015 as per Annexure-C is hereby
quashed;
iii. The rights of respondents, if any, shall be
subject to out come of pending suit in
O.S.No.8/2016.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
HDK
