Karnataka High Court
Ramaswamy vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:18826
WP No. 47912 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.47912 OF 2014 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. RAMASWAMY
SICE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
1(a). SMT. CHENNAMMA
W/O LATE RAMASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS.
1(b). SRI. KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE RAMASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
1(c). SMT. ANNEMMA
D/O LATE RAMASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
1(d). SRI. SUBRAMANI
Digitally signed by
SHARMA ANAND S/O. LATE RAMASWAMY
CHAYA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1(e). SMT. RADHA
D/O LATE RAMASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
PETITIONERS NO. 1(a) TO 1(e)
ARE R/AT KADUR VILLAGE
MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130.
2. PERUMALAPPA
S/O BODAPPA,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:18826
WP No. 47912 of 2014
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST
R/O HANUMANTHANAGAR,
MALUR TOWN,
TAL:MALUR DISTRICT
KOALR.
3. B. RANGASWAMY
S/O SEENAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OCC:BUSINESS
R/O 419, 9TH 'E' CORS,
KUVEMPU CIRCLE
VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 040.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. R.G. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPT. REVENUE
M.S.BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOLAR DISTRICT,
KOLAR.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KOLAR SUB DIVISION,
KOLAR.
4. CHINNAPILLAPPA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
4(a). LAKSHMAMMA
W/O CHINNAPILLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:18826
WP No. 47912 of 2014
HC-KAR
4(b). MALAVATHI
D/O CHINNAPILLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
4(c). PADMAVATHI C.
D/O CHINNAPILLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
4(d). CHANDRIKA
D/O CHINNAPILLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
4(e). M.C. RAJU
S/O CHINNAPILLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R4(a) TO R4(e) ARE
RESIDING AT PATALAMMA
TEMPLE ROAD, MALUR TOWN
KOLAR DISTRICT.
4(f). KALAVATHI
D/O CHINNAPILLAPPA
AGED MAJOR
R/AT BRINDAVAN BADAVANE
VARAMAVU,
GANDHI CIRCLE,
K.R. PURAM
BENGALURU - 560 036.
5. D. VENKATESHAPPA
S/O DEKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
6. D.NARAYANASWAMY
S/O DEKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.5 & 6 ARE
R/O PATALAMMA TEMPLE BEEDI,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:18826
WP No. 47912 of 2014
HC-KAR
MALUR TOWN,
KOLAR DISTRICT.
7. M.S. BABAU
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
7(a). SMT. S.P. KOMAL
W/O M.S. BABU
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
7(b). KUMARI PREKSHA B.
D/O M.S. BABU
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.7(a) AND 7(b)
R/O PATALAMMA TEMPLE BEEDI,
MALUR TOWN,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR
R4(a) TO R4(f),R5, R6, R7(a) & R7(b))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER UNDER ANNEXURE-A BEARING RA
NO.18/2008-09 DATED 19.12.2009 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.3 AND ANNEXURE-B BEARING NO.42/2009-
10 DATED 08.02.2012 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:18826
WP No. 47912 of 2014
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners assailing the
Order dated 19.12.2009 in R.A.No.18/2008-09 (Annexure-A)
passed by respondent No.3 and the Order dated 08.02.2012 in
R.A.No.42/2009-10 (Annexure-B).
2. I have heard Sri. R.G. Hegde, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Smt. Savithramma, learned Additional
Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3, and Sri. C.
Shankar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 7.
3. Sri. R.G. Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioners
contended that, the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the sons of late
Bodappa and petitioner No.3 is the grandson of late Bodappa.
The land in question bearing Sy.No.No.112/B53 (new No.558)
measuring 2 acres of land at Malur Town, Kolar District was
granted to father of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 as per Grant
Certificate dated 24.05.1961. After the demise of Bodappa,
petitioners herein are in possession of the land in question. It is
also stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
NC: 2025:KHC:18826
HC-KAR
respondent No.4 has made an application seeking transfer of
khata in respect of the land in question and as such,
M.R.No.194/2006-07 was issued by the competent authority
and same was challenged before respondent No.3 in
R.A.No.18/2008-09. It is also contended that, the respondent
No.3 has dismissed the appeal and as such the petitioners
herein have preferred R.A.No.42/2009-10 which came to be
dismissed by the impugned order. It is further contended by
the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no
discrepancy in so far as measurement of the land in question is
concerned and therefore the mutation in M.R.No.49/2000-01
and M.R.No.194/2006-07 and M.R.No.186/2006-07 are illegal
and accordingly, sought of interference of this Court.
4. Per contra, Sri. C. Shankar Reddy, learned counsel
appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 7 submitted that the
petitioners herein have filed O.S.No.5/2016 before the Civil
Court seeking relief of declaration with consequential relief of
permanent injunction, which came to be dismissed on
31.03.2018 and thereafter the petitioners herein have filed
R.A.No.80/2018 before the First Appellate Court, which came to
be dismissed by the Appellate Court by judgment and decree
NC: 2025:KHC:18826
HC-KAR
dated 24.09.2019 and thereafter the petitioners have preferred
RSA No.1715/2019 before this Court and the same is pending
consideration. Learned counsel accordingly submitted that,
there is no infirmity in the impugned orders at Annexure-A and
B, and as such, sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. Smt. Savithramma, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 sought to justify
the impugned orders.
6. In the light of the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined
the finding recorded by both the authorities at Annexures - A
and B. It is stated in the impugned order that the land bearing
Sy.No.112 of Malur District was granted in favour of father of
petitioner Nos.1 and 2, Bodappa to an extent of 2 acres and
thereafter the land in question was sold in favour of respondent
No.4, as per the registered Sale Deed dated 27.04.1963. It is
also to be considered that the petitioners herein have filed
O.S.No.5/2016 seeking relief of declaration of title and for
permanent injunction, which came to be dismissed by the Trial
Court by Judgment and decree dated 31.03.2018. It is also to
NC: 2025:KHC:18826
HC-KAR
be noted that issue No.1 in the said suit is with regard to title
of the petitioners in respect of the suit schedule properties
which has been negated by the Trial Court. It is also to be
noted that the petitioners herein have filed R.A.No.80/2018
which came to be dismissed by First Appellate Court by
Judgment and decree dated 24.09.2019. Accordingly, taking
into consideration that RSA No.1715/2019 is pending
consideration before this Court, I am of the view, that no
interference is called for in so far as the impugned orders
passed by the respondent-authorities are concerned. However,
it is open for the petitioners herein to approach the revenue
authorities pursuant to the Judgment and decree that may be
passed by this Court in RSA No.1715/2019, if so advised.
7. With the above observation the Writ Petition is dismissed
as devoid of merits.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
sac
