Karnataka High Court
Venkataramanna @ Thimmappa vs Chaluvamma on 28 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:24123
WP No. 50568 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 50568 OF 2018 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. VENKATARAMANNA @ THIMMAPPA,
S/O. MELEGOWDA,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,
SMT.GOWRAMMA,
D/O. LATE. VENKATARAMANA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT NO.65, 13TH CROSS,
NEAR GANESH TEMPLE,
TEACHERS COLONY,
KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE - 560 034.
2. SRI. KRISHNAPPA,
S/O. LATE VENKATARAMANA,
Digitally signed by
ARUNKUMAR M S AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
Location: High
Court of Karnataka
3. SRI. RAVI,
S/O. LATE VENKATARAMANA,
AGE: 45 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.63, 1ST CROSS,
5TH MAIN ROAD,
TEACHERS COLONY,
KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE - 560 034.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:24123
WP No. 50568 of 2018
4. PUTTASWAMY,
S/O. MELEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
NO.107, SHANKAR MUTI ROAD,
2ND CROSS,
SHIMOGA - 577 201.
5. CHINNAGIRIGOWDA,
S/O. MELEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
NO.131, "SREENIDHI",
5TH 'A' CROSS, CHIKKASWAMY LAYOUT,
JARAGANAHALLI,
J.P.NAGAR POST,
BANGALORE - 560 078.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. D.L. JAGADEESH FOR
SMT. RAKSHITHA D J., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CHALUVAMMA,
W/O.LATE MELEGOWDA,
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS,
THE PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENT NO.1,
VENKATAPPA,
S/O.LATE MELEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
2. M. V. UMESHA,
S/O. VENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:24123
WP No. 50568 of 2018
MAVATHUR, MARALAVADI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK - 562 117.
3. THE TAHASILDAR,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
KANAKAPURA - 562 117.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
RAMANAGAR SUB-DIVISION,
RAMANAGAR - 562 117.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT,
RAMANAGAR - 562 117.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S.,ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R5;
SRI. D.GANGADHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED.27.07.2017 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.3 IN RRT[DS]67/06-07 VIDE ANNEXURE-A
AND THAT OF TH EORDER DTD15.10.2017 PASSD BY THE R-4
IN R.A.[LKP] NO.334/07.08 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND THAT OF
THE ORDER DATED.12.07.2018 PASSED BY THE R-5 IN
REVISION PETITION NO.164/2007-08 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:24123
WP No. 50568 of 2018
ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing the order
dated 27.07.2007 passed by the respondent No.3 - the
Tahasildar in RRT (DS)67/06-07 (Annexure-A), the order dated
15.10.2007 passed by the respondent No.4 - Assistant
Commissioner, Ramanagar in R.A.(LKP) No.334/07-08
(Annexure-B) and order dated 12.07.2018 passed by the
respondent No.5 - Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagar in
Revision Petition No.164/2007-08 (Annexure - F) to the writ
petition.
2. Heard Sri.D.L. Jagadeesh, Learned Senior Counsel
appearing for Smt.Rakshitha D.J. for the petitioners and
Sri.D.Gangadhara, learned counsel appearing for respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri. Harisha A.S., learned Additional
Government Advocate for the respondents Nos.3 to 5.
3. It is contended by Sri. D.L. Jagadeesh, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners, by referring to the
judgment and decree dated 27.07.2007 in O.S.No.427/2006
(Annexure-C) that, the Civil Court has decreed the suit, holding
that the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/5th share in the suit schedule
NC: 2024:KHC:24123
properties and the plaintiff No.1 is the petitioner in this writ
petition. He further submitted that the judgment and decree is
subject to the judgment that may be passed by this Court in
RSA No.539/2013 and same is pending consideration before
this court. It is also contended by the learned Senior Counsel,
that, the revenue authorities, while passing the impugned
orders, have not been given an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners and therefore, sought for interference of this Court.
4. Per contra, learned counsel, Sri.D.Gangadhara,
appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 sought to justify the
impugned orders stating that, the petitioners have no legal
right to claim for change of revenue entries in respect of the
land in question as the change of revenue entries has to be
made with regard to the fact that the plaintiffs/petitioners
herein have to establish that they are the members of the joint
family, consisting of the deceased - Smt.Chaluvamma and her
children. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of this writ petition.
5. Sri. Harisha A.S, learned Additional Government
Advocate, sought to justify the impugned orders passed by the
respondent - authorities.
NC: 2024:KHC:24123
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, I have carefully examined the impugned orders
produced at Annexures- A to C, wherein, the petitioners herein
are not parties to the proceedings before the revenue
authorities and have not been heard in the matter.
7. It is also forthcoming from the writ papers that, as per
Annexure-C, the petitioners herein have filed O.S.No.427/2006
before the Civil Court, seeking the relief of partition and
separate of possession in respect of the subject matter of land
and the suit came be to decreed in part on 27.09.2010, holding
that plaintiffs are entitled for 1/5th share in Item Nos.1,2 and 4
of the suit schedule properties. It is also not disputed by the
parties that, the subject matter in O.S.No.427/2006 has to be
decided in appeal in R.S.A.No.539/2013, pending consideration
before this court. In that view of the matter, since, the title in
respect of land in question has to be decided by this court in
the aforementioned second appeal and further, as the parties
have not been given an opportunity of hearing by the revenue
authorities, the writ petition is disposed of, setting aside the
impugned orders passed at Annexures- A, B and C passed by
the respondent - authorities and further, the revenue
NC: 2024:KHC:24123
authorities are directed to enter the name of the parties,
subject to the result of the judgment that may be passed in the
Regular Second Appeal No.539/2013 by this court.
SD/-
JUDGE
AMM
