Karnataka High Court
Smt Ammayamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:5342
WP No. 11621 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 11621 OF 2020 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT AMMAYAMMA
W/O LATE G. MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
2. SRI. MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE CHIKKAGULLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
BOTH RESIDING AT:
MARASURU VILLAGE AND POST,
KASABA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT 566 106.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. ARNAV A BAGALWADI.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by AL BHAGYA
AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATKA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE- 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION
BENGALURU 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:5342
WP No. 11621 of 2020
3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
(TASK FORCE)
PREVENTION OF UNAUTHORIZED
CONSTRUCTION CELL,
K.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU 560 009.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
BENGALURU 562 106.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B P RADHA, AGA)
THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATION DATED 29.08.2019 MADE BY THE
PETITIONERS, A COPY OF WHICH IS HEREIN PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE-F FORTHWITH AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO
CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.12.2019 MADE BY
THE PETITIONERS, A COPY OF WHICH IS HEREIN PRODUCED
AS ANNEXURE-G FORTHWITH AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
In the captioned petition, petitioners are seeking a
direction against respondents to consider their
NC: 2025:KHC:5342
representations dated 29.8.2019 and 20.12.2019 as per
Annexures-F and G.
2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioners, learned AGA appearing for respondents
and learned Senior Counsel appearing for the impleading
applicant in I.A.No.1/2024.
3. The facts leading to the case are as under:
The subject-matter of this petition is the agricultural
land bearing Survey No.338/A. Petitioners' filed an
application in Form No.53 asserting that they are in
unauthorized occupation and cultivation of petition land.
The Committee recommended to regularize the petitioner's
unauthorized occupation. However, the jurisdictional
Tahsildar failed to issue the saguvali chit. By then, it
appears respondent No.2 issued a notification dated
14.6.2007 auctioning the land in question under Rule
12(2) of Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969. Petitioners
challenged the auction by filing a writ petition in
W.P.No.53844/2013 and W.P.No.53974/2013. The Co-
NC: 2025:KHC:5342
Ordinate Bench declined to entertain the petitioners'
prayer and dismissed the petitions vide order dated
14.1.2016. Petitioners assailed the said order in
W.A.No.5087/2016.
4. The Division Bench though declined to entertain
the appeal filed by the petitioners, however, in the course
of the order, having noticed that the impleading applicant
who is the successful bidder had failed to deposit 75% of
the bid amount, was of the view that even auction has to
go. The impleading applicant assailing the order passed
by the Division Bench in W.A.No.5087/2016 approached
the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Apex Court however
confirming the findings rendered by the Division Bench in
W.A. No.5087/2016 dismissed the civil appeal filed in
Appeal No.7065/2023 vide judgment dated 30.10.2023.
The review petition filed by the impleading applicant is
also dismissed vide order dated 14.5.2024.
4. Now in the second round of litigation,
petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this
NC: 2025:KHC:5342
Court on the ground that petition land was admittedly the
ancestral property of the petitioners and on account of ill
advice, they filed an application in Form No.53 seeking
regularization. Therefore, petitioners assert that earlier
rejection of their claim will not operate as res judicata as
they have got pre-existing right in petition property,
admittedly being an ancestral property. Reliance is placed
on the revenue records to substantiate that petitioners
have got legal right to seek directions at the hands of this
Court.
5. Per contra, the State has filed detailed
objections asserting that petition land is a Akharkand
Kharab land and at no point of time, this land was a patta
land. The State has also taken a contention that this land
was never notified as a pada land.
6. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner and impleading applicant and
the learned AGA, the following points would arise for
consideration:
NC: 2025:KHC:5342
"(1) Whether the impleading applicant is
necessary party to the present petition?
(2) Whether petitioners have got legal right to
seek directions at the hands of this Court?
FINDINGS ON POINT No.1:
7. This issue may not detain this Court long in the
light of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Civil
Appeal No.7065/2023. The order passed by the Division
Bench in W.A.No.5087/2016 thereby declining the rights of
the impleading applicant who was an auction purchaser
which is confirmed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal
No.7065/2023 gives a closure to the impleading
applicant's rights, if any, in the petition land. The Apex
Court while affirming the findings of the Division Bench
has held that the impleading applicant failed to deposit the
balance amount of 75% of the bid amount in terms of
Clause 11 of the terms and conditions contained in the
Public Auction Notice dated 14.06.2007. Though a
demand notice by way of communication was served on
the impleading applicant vide memo dated 3.10.2013, on
NC: 2025:KHC:5342
account of non-deposit, the right of the impleading
applicant as an auction purchaser was dealt and decided
and this Court held that impleading applicant is not
entitled to secure conveyance in their favour. Further
more, the Apex Court concurred with the directions issued
by the Division Bench directing the authorities to refund
25% of the bid amount along with interest. This judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court is confirmed by
dismissing the review petition.
8. In the light of these significant details,
impleading applicant is not a necessary party to the
present petition. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in
the negative. Consequently, I.A.No.1/2024 is rejected.
Finding on point No.2:
9. Considering the nature of relief sought in the
present writ petition, this Court is of the firm view that a
writ of mandamus is not the appropriate forum for
adjudicating conflicting claims over the land in question.
NC: 2025:KHC:5342
The primary obligation to examine and resolve the
petitioners' representation rests with the competent
authority to whom such representation has been
submitted. The State, while opposing the claim of the
petitioners, cannot seek a resolution of such
representation through the writ jurisdiction of this Court,
as the process of adjudication must be carried out by the
authority designated under law. A writ of mandamus is
issued only to compel a public authority to perform its
statutory duty and cannot be used as a mechanism for
resolving factual disputes that require examination of
evidence. The objections raised by the State, including its
contention that the land in question is Akharkand Kharab
land and that the petitioners were never in possession,
must be duly considered by the authority in charge, in
accordance with the law. The conflicting assertions made
by both parties ,whether the land is Hiduvali land as
claimed by the petitioners or Akharkand Kharab land as
asserted by the State--necessitate an inquiry by the
NC: 2025:KHC:5342
competent authority, and not by this Court in writ
proceedings.
10. Accordingly, without delving into the rival
contentions, this Court directs the concerned authorities to
take up and decide the representations submitted by the
petitioners on 29.08.2019 and 20.12.2019 in accordance
with law, after providing due opportunity to all
stakeholders. The duty to adjudicate lies squarely with the
authority that has received the representation, and it is for
that authority to arrive at a lawful conclusion after due
consideration of all relevant factors.
11. Therefore, keeping all contentions open, this
Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) Petitioners' representations dated
29.08.2019 and 20.12.2019 shall be considered by
respondents 2 and 4 in accordance with law.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5342
(iii) This exercise shall be accomplished within a
period of four months' from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order.
SD/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
ALB
