Karnataka High Court
Smt. Byramma vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:45087
WP No. 4025 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT PETITION NO.4025 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. BYRAMMA
W/O LATE K.B.DODDEGOWDA
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRs
1(a) SRI NAGESH K.D.
S/O LATE K.B. DODDEGOWDA @ DODANNA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT KANNAMANGALA VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
BENGALURU-560 067.
1(b) SMT. PRABHADEVI
D/O LATE K.B. DODDEGOWDA @ DODANNA
W/O SRI SURYANARAYAN RAJ
Digitally AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
signed by
CHAITHANYA R/AT NO.482, BHEL MINI COLONY
K
Location:
PIPELINE ROAD, DASARAHALLI
High Court of BENGALURU-560 057.
Karnataka
1(c) SMT. VINODHA
D/O LATE K.B. DODEGOWDA @ DODANNA
W/O SRI KRISHNAPPA K.M.
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT NO.23, 5TH MAIN
5TH CROSS, CHUNCHAGHATTA
KONANAKUNTE,
BENGALURU-560 062.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:45087
WP No. 4025 of 2021
1(d) SMT. VENKATALAKSHMI
D/O LATE K.B. DODDEGOWDA @ DODANNA
W/O MUNISONNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT NADAVATHI VILLAGE
HOSAKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
1(e) SMT. GAYATHRI
D/O LATE K.B. DODDEGOWDA @ DODANNA
W/O SRI CHIKKAGOPALA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT DEVANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE
REDDYHALLI POST
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
1(f) SMT. MANJULADEVI D.
D/O LATE K.B. DODDEGOWDA @ DODANNA
W/O SRI VENKATAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT NO.357/4, NEAR SOMESHWARA TEMPLE
KANNAMANGALA VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI S.B. TOTAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:45087
WP No. 4025 of 2021
KHANDAYA BHAVANA
K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION
KHANDAYA BHAVAN
K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.
4. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
K.R. PURAM, BENGALURU.
5. SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT SIDDAPURA VILLAGE
VARTHUR HOBLI
BENGLAURU EAST TALUK
BENGALURU-560 087.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R.1 TO R.4;
SRI N. MURALI, ADVOCATE FOR R.5.)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.02.2021 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 IN R.P.NO.703/2017-18, IN RESPECT OF
LAND MEASURING 1 ACRE 35 GUNTAS IN SY.NO.53/2 OF
SIDDAPURA VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST
TALUK, WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT
PETITION AS THE SAME SUFFERS FROM ERROR APPARENT ON
THE FACE OF THE RECORD, ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO
CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
`
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:45087
WP No. 4025 of 2021
ORAL ORDER
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 04.02.2021 passed by
respondent no.2 in Revision Petition No.703/2017-2018,
the present writ petition is filed by legal representatives of
deceased respondent no.3 therein.
2. Respondent no.5 claimed right over 1 acre 35 guntas
of land in Survey No.53/2 of Siddapura Village, Varthur
Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk by virtue of a compromise
decree passed in O.S.No.608/1992 by the Court of II
Munsiff, Bengaluru. The revenue entries pertaining to the
said property was mutated in the name of respondent
no.5. The original petitioner was not made a party to the
proceedings in O.S.No.608/1992. On the ground that
respondent no.5 is not the owner of the property, but it is
the original petitioner and that the decree passed in
O.S.No.608/1992 is not binding on the original petitioner,
the original petitioner preferred O.S.No.213/1993 before
the Principal II Munsiff, Bengaluru. In the said original
suit, respondent no.5 has been impleaded as a party. The
NC: 2024:KHC:45087
trial court has decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner
herein. The said decree was challenged by respondent
no.5 in R.A.No.53/1997. The same came to be dismissed.
It was challenged by respondent no.5 in RSA
No.961/2004. The same came to be dismissed as
withdrawn. On the ground that the original petitioner is
the owner of the property which is the subject matter of
the writ petition, she preferred an appeal before
respondent no.3 to have the revenue entries regarding the
property mutated in her name. As the original petitioner
had succeeded in O.S.No.213/1993, R.A.No.53/1997 and
RSA No.961/2004, respondent no.3 passed an order (vide
Annexure-H to the writ petition) mutating the revenue
entry regarding the property concerned in the name of the
original petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, respondent
no.5 preferred a revision before respondent no.2.
Respondent no.2 for the following reason has allowed the
said revision and has directed that the revenue entries to
be mutated in the name of respondent no.5:
NC: 2024:KHC:45087
"9. The decree obtained by the 3rd respondent in
O.S.No.213/93 is under challenge in a suit in
O.S.No.2842/2006, on the file of the Hon'ble Civil Judge
(Sr.Dn), Bengaluru and hence the matter has been seized
before the Hon'ble Civil Court and hence, it is just and
proper to remain the revenue records in respect of the
said land in the name of the earlier khatedar i.e., the
petitioner herein and hence, the impugned order is liable
to be set-aside. The above revision petition is entitled to
be allowed."
3. As can be seen from the impugned order, the same
is passed without taking into consideration the judgments
rendered in O.S.No.213/1993, R.A.No.53/1997 and RSA
No.961/2004. The said judgments hold the original
petitioner to be the owner of the property concerned.
Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the
order dated 30.06.2015 passed by respondent no.3 in RA
[B.E.] No.146/2005-06 vide Annexure-H to the writ
petition is required to be confirmed. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The impugned order dated 04.02.2021
passed by respondent no.2 in Revision Petition
NC: 2024:KHC:45087
No.703/2017-2018 (vide Annexure-A to the writ
petition) is hereby set aside;
(ii) The order dated 30.06.2015 passed by
respondent no.3 in RA (B.E.) No.146/2005-06 is
hereby confirmed;
(iii) The writ petition stands disposed of
accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.I.ARUN)
JUDGE
hkh.
