Karnataka High Court
Sri Muniraju vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 April, 2025
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:13491
WP No. 1023 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 1023 OF 2024 (LR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA @ ANNAIAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
2. SRI GURUMURTHY
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA @ ANNAIAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
3. SRI RAJANNA
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA @ ANNAIAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
4. SRI RAVICHANDRA
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA @ ANNAIAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
Digitally 5. SRI BALAKRISHNA
signed by
KIRAN S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA @ ANNAIAPPA
KUMAR R AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO 138/3,
3RD MAIN, 9TH CROSS, BYRASANDRA,
1ST BLOCK, EAST JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 011
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. R V SHIVANANDA REDDY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPTD BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:13491
WP No. 1023 of 2024
VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR
LAND TRIBUNAL,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 09
3. SRI A N MANJUNATH
S/O LATE VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
4. SRI SATHYANARAYANA
S/O LATE N VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
5. SMT SHARADAMMA
D/O LATE N VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R-3 TO R-5 RESIDING AT NO 73,
2ND MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS, ANJANEYANAGAR
BANASHANKARI III STAGE
BENGALURU - 560085
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R-1 & R-2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT / ORDER DATED 28/09/1979 PASSED
BY THE KARNATAKA LAND TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU SOUTH
TALUK, BENGALURU SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ONLY
(ANNEXURE-A) IMPUGNED ORDER / JUDGMENT PASSED IN LRF
NO. 3995/1975-76 DATED 28/09/1979, BY ALLOWING THE WP,
ETC.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:13491
WP No. 1023 of 2024
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
ORAL ORDER
1. An order of the Land Tribunal passed on 28.09.1979
is being called in question in this writ petition, which
has been filed on 02.01.2024.
2. In other words, an order that was passed 45 years
ago is being called in question.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that their
grandmother Doddadasamma owned the lands and
though she was arrayed as respondent No.5 before
the Land Tribunal and Land Tribunal has stated that
she had also appeared before the Land Tribunal and
has recorded a statement, as a matter of fact, the
said assertion was false in as much as
Doddadasamma had passed away prior to the
passing of the order in the year 1975.
NC: 2025:KHC:13491
4. It is therefore contended that the order of the
Tribunal is only against a dead person and,
therefore, the same is in nullity and cannot be
sustained.
5. At the outset, it is to be mentioned here though an
assertion is being made that Doddadasamma had
passed away in the year 1975 and the order passed
by the Land Tribunal against a dead person, the fact
remains that this order was not challenged by the
children of Doddadasamma during their lifetime and
the petitioners herein are only the grandchildren,
who claim that the property belonged to their
grandmother and the order is liable to be set aside.
6. If the children of Doddadasamma did not choose to
challenge the order passed by the Land Tribunal, the
entertaining of this writ petition at the instance of
the grandchildren of Doddadasamma cannot be
accepted.
NC: 2025:KHC:13491
7. It has to be noticed here that the revenue entries
were admittedly changed in the name of the tenant
and this was obviously within the knowledge of the
petitioners and also their parents and yet no action
was taken by the parents of the petitioners to
challenge the order of the Land Tribunal.
8. In my view, therefore, there was clear notice of the
order of the Land Tribunal to the parents of the
petitioners and yet they did not choose to challenge
it and, consequently, it is deemed that they had
accepted the order of the Land Tribunal.
9. It is also forthcoming from the representation
produced as Annexure - L that only on 04.02.2019,
an application was made for change of khata from
the name of the petitioners' grandmother to theirs.
In this representation, it is also forthcoming that one
Jayakumar had secured a plan for construction of a
multi storied building.
NC: 2025:KHC:13491
10. This representation by itself would indicate that the
land has lost its nature of agricultural character and
is being utilized for non-agricultural purposes. It is
therefore inconceivable that the petitioners continued
in possession and were engaged in agricultural
activities.
11. I am therefore of the view that there is no
justification in entertaining this writ petition and this
writ petition is therefore dismissed.
12. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending
interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
GSR
