Karnataka High Court
Smt.Pushpavathamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:47285-DB
WA No. 386 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL No. 386 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.PUSHPAVATHAMMA,
W/O SRI NARAYANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/AT CHEERALA VILLAGE,
PUNGANUR TALUK,
CHITTOR DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH,
PIN 517247.
2. SMT. R. PADMAVATHAMMA,
W/O SRI R. OBALA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT KANGANAMBANDA VILLAGE,
Digitally signed PEDDA PANAJAI TALUK,
by VALLI
MARIMUTHU CHITTOOR DISTRICT,
Location: High ANDHRA PRADESH
Court of PIN 5714247.
Karnataka
APPELLANTS 1 AND 2 ARE BOTH
REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER
B. C. MURALIDHAR,
S/O LATE B. M. CHANRAIAH SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT BHAGYACHANDRA NILAYA,
NEAR DOOMLIGHT CIRCLE,
KATARIPALYA, KOLAR CITY 563101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI A. MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:47285-DB
WA No. 386 of 2024
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRSENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE 560001.
2. REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR
OF LAND RECORDS,
BANGALORE DIVISION,
K. R. CIRCLE,
BANGALORE 560001.
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANT TO
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KOLAR DISTRICT,
KOLAR 563101.
4. TAHSILDAR,
KOLAR TALK,
KOLAR 563101.
5. SMT. ARUNA,
W/O LATE RADHAKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT CHOWDESHWARI NAGAR,
PETECHAMANAHALLI,
KOLAR TOWN,
KOLAR 563101.
6. SMT. SUNANDAMMA,
W/O LATE R. BYRAPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT CHOWDESHWARI NAGAR,
PETECHAMANAHALLI,
KOLAR TOWN,
KOLAR 563101.
7. SMT. H. E. SUJATHA,
W/O SRI ANIL KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT No.725,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:47285-DB
WA No. 386 of 2024
PETECHAMANAHALLI,
KOLAR TOWN,
KOLAR 563101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.01.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No. 27063/2023.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)
Heard learned advocate Mr. A. Madhusudhana Rao for the
appellants and learned Government Advocate Mr. K.S. Harish who
appears for the respondent-State and its authorities upon service of
copy of the appeal.
2. The appellants herein, who are the original respondent Nos.5
and 6 in the writ petition, sought to call in question the judgment
and order dated 25.01.2024 of learned Single Judge. Learned
Single Judge set aside the order impugned in the writ petition and
made certain observations.
NC: 2024:KHC:47285-DB
2.1 What was challenged in the petition by the original petitioner-
respondent No.7 herein was the order dated 31.08.2023 passed by
the Regional Joint Director of Land Records, Bengaluru Division.
3. The facts in the background inter alia are that 6.5 Guntas of
land in Survey No.34/1 came to be sold in favour of Smt. Aruna
and Smt. Kavitha by one Sri Radhakrishna by a registered sale
deed dated 01.07.2008. The names of the vendees were mutated
in the Record of Rights who sought phodi and durasti for the land
to the extent they purchased. As the said 6.5 Guntas of land were
given new Survey No.34/4 and mutation entries were done.
3.1 It appears that the husband of the petitioner purchased the land
in question from the said Smt. Aruna and Smt. Kavitha. On
28.03.2016 when the registered sale deed in favour of the husband
of the petitioner was executed, a Gift Deed dated 07.06.2018 was
executed in favour of the petitioner by her husband.
3.2 The phodi and durasti assigned to the new Survey No.34/4
came to be challenged by the contesting respondents by filing the
appeal. The appeal was dismissed on 20.09.2022 by the Technical
Assistant and Deputy Director of Land Records observing that the
NC: 2024:KHC:47285-DB
claim of the appellants could be considered only in the civil
proceedings before the Civil Court.
3.3 Against the said order of the Technical Assistant and Deputy
Director, the respondents filed revision application under Section
56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The Regional Joint
Director of Land Records passed the order dated 31.08.2023. The
revisional authority remitted the matter back. The order came to be
impugned in the writ petition.
3.4 A relevant aspect which figures in the controversy is that
Original Suit No.5 of 1993 instituted by the contesting respondents
came to be decreed and 1/6th share was allotted to the plaintiffs-the
contesting respondents. The final decree proceedings are still at
large before the Civil Court. Nevertheless, the Joint Director-the
revisional authority has proceeded to pass the order to set aside
the order of the Technical Assistant and Deputy Director and
remitted the matter back.
4. Learned Single Judge accepted the contention of learned
advocate for the petitioner that the rights of the parties including the
assignment of specific allotment of share would be subject to the
process of adjudication in the final decree proceedings which are
NC: 2024:KHC:47285-DB
pending before the Civil Court. In that light, remitting the matter
back derives no justification.
4.1 Learned Single Judge, after considering the controversy and
the rival contentions, recorded the following findings, extracting
from paragraph 6,
"...this court is of the considered opinion that
when the civil court has decreed the suit filed
by the plaintiffs and in a partition suit the share
of the parties have been determined and
decreed and more particularly, 1/6th share is
assigned to the contesting respondents herein,
in the final decree proceedings the petitioners
herein or their vendors are entitled to seek to
workout the equities having regard to the sale
already made in the year 2008 and 2016."
4.2 While setting aside the order of the revisional authority,
learned Single Judge further kept open the contentions of both the
parties in respect of the assignment of share and the equity which
may be claimed in that regard, without expressing any opinion on
merits. It was observed that it would be open for the contesting
respondents to raise objections regarding the allotment of specific
shares in favour of the petitioner's vendors who were the
contesting defendants before the Civil Court. Learned Single
Judge also directed the Survey Settlement authorities to stay their
NC: 2024:KHC:47285-DB
hands to await the final decision of the Civil Court in the decree
proceedings.
5. The order passed by learned Single Judge and the directions
issued are eminently just, proper and legal. The observations and
directions issued operate to balance the rights of the parties. They
are appropriately passed in wake of and in light of pendency of the
proceedings before the Civil Court in which the parties are
asserting their respective claims.
6. No error could be booked in the order of learned Single
Judge. The challenge thereto in this appeal is meritless.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
VBS
