Karnataka High Court
Sri M C Sundaramurthy vs The Government Of Karnataka on 23 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:21881
WP No. 29334 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.29334 OF 2016 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI M.C. SUNDARAMURTHY
SINCE DECEASED BY LRs.
1(a) SMT. NALINI SUNDAR
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
W/O LATE M.C. SUNDARMURTHY
RESIDING AT NO.85B
SOBHA EMERALD, PHASE II, JAKKUR
BENGALURU-560 064.
1(b) SRI. SANJAYKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O LATE M.C. SUNDARMURTHY
Digitally signed by
NAGARAJA B M RESIDING AT NO.85B
Location: HIGH SOBHA EMERALD, PHASE II, JAKKUR
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 064.
1(c) SRI. S. VIJAYKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O LATE M.C. SUNDARMURTHY
RESIDING AT NO.176047
72 AVENUE NORTH, MALPEGROVE
MANNESOTA-55311
USA.
1(d) SMT. MAHALAKSHMI SUNEETHA .J
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:21881
WP No. 29334 of 2016
HC-KAR
W/O JAYASHEELAN V
R/AT NO.10, 8TH CROSS
NANDA NIVAS
VAKIL GARDEN CITY EXTENSION
TALAGHATTAPURA
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU-560 062.
2. SRI. M.C. SELVAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
S/O LATE SRI. M. CHINNASWAMY MUDALIAR
R/AT NO.30, 18TH CROSS
RANGANATHAPURA, MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU-560 003.
3. SMT. SHANTHAKUMARI
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
D/O LATE M. CHINNASWAMY MUDALIAR
R/AT NO.10, BUDDAPPA GOWNDER STREET
THIRUPATHUR, VELLORE DISTRICT
TAMILNADU
REPRESENTED IN THIS PROCEEDINGS
BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SELVAKUMAR.
4. SMT. M.C. NIRMALA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
D/O LATE SRI. M. CHINNASWAMY MUDALIAR
R/AT NO.35, SHAKTHINAPURA
THIRUPATHUR VELLORE DISTRICT
TAMILNADU
REPRESENTED IN THIS PROCEEDINGS
BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SELVAKUMAR.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SUBHASH .S, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:21881
WP No. 29334 of 2016
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M.S. BUILDINGS, K.R. CIRCLE
VEDHANA VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001.
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
SOUTH ZONE, SURVEY OFFICE BUILDING
K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE ENQUIRY OFFICER-1
CITY SURVEY OFFICE
K.R. CIRCLE, VIDHANA VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AAG A/W
SRI MANJUNATH K., HCGP.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.02.2016 IN CASE
NO.CTS (B) REVISION 27/2014-15 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 ANNEXURE-N AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:21881
WP No. 29334 of 2016
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Petitioners who are tracing title through their father
M. Chinnaswamy Mudaliar have filed the captioned petition
assailing the order of the respondent No.3 vide Annexure-
M and the order passed by the revisional
authority/respondent No.2 vide Annexure-N.
2. The present writ petition involves a long-
standing dispute with a checkered history. The subject
matter of the writ petition relates to 20 guntas of land
situated in Sy.Nos.1 and 4 of Jodi Ranganathapura Village.
The petitioners claim to have derived title to the schedule
property through their father, late Chinnaswamy Mudaliar,
who is said to have purchased the said land under a
registered sale deed dated 24.06.1959. Pursuant to the
said sale, physical possession was delivered to their
father, and he is said to have been put in lawful
possession. It is further stated that revenue records were
NC: 2025:KHC:21881
HC-KAR
duly mutated in his name, and the property was thereafter
subjected to taxes and other statutory levies.
3. After acquiring the property, the petitioners'
father is stated to have approached the then City
Improvement Trust Board (CITB), which is now the
Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), seeking
permission for formation of a residential layout. The CITB,
through its Chairman, is said to have accepted partial
payment towards the layout development charges.
However, the Bangalore City Corporation (now BBMP)
disputed the petitioners' father's title and possession over
the said property, which necessitated initiation of a civil
suit in O.S.No.1367/1961, later renumbered as
O.S.No.247/1983.
4. The said suit was contested tooth and nail by
the Corporation. The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the
oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit,
declaring that the plaintiffs' father was the absolute owner
NC: 2025:KHC:21881
HC-KAR
and was in lawful possession of the schedule property.
The Court also granted a permanent injunction restraining
the Corporation from interfering with his possession. The
said decree was carried in appeal in RFA No.464/1984 and
ultimately to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP
No.14864/1986. However, the judgment of the Trial Court
was affirmed by the High Court and subsequently by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, which dismissed the Special Leave
Petition, thereby giving finality to the title and possession
of the petitioners' father.
5. The petitioners have also drawn attention to
parallel proceedings initiated by one K. Shanmugam,
which eventually culminated in a direction issued by
respondent No.2 vide order dated 28.03.2005 (Annexure-
G). In the said proceedings, respondent No.2, adhering to
the binding judgment in O.S.No.247/1983, directed the
concerned revenue authorities to act accordingly. Despite
this categorical direction, respondent No.3 failed to
implement the same. The petitioners were constrained to
NC: 2025:KHC:21881
HC-KAR
make repeated representations requesting respondent
No.3 to give effect to the order of respondent No.2 and
carry out mutation of the property in their favour, in line
with the decree of the civil court. Instead of complying,
respondent No.3 initiated a fresh enquiry and, surprisingly,
called for objections from third parties.
6. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners approached
this Hon'ble Court by filing W.P.No.2727/2013, contending
that the action of respondent No.3 in initiating a fresh
enquiry was wholly unwarranted and contrary to the
decree passed in O.S.No.247/1983, which had attained
finality. This Court, by order dated 11.02.2014 (Annexure-
L), allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned
notice calling for objections. This Court observed that the
title of the petitioners' father had already been adjudicated
conclusively and could not be reopened.
7. However, despite the directions issued by this
Court, respondent No.3 took up the matter once again
NC: 2025:KHC:21881
HC-KAR
after nearly six months and conducted a spot inspection.
Thereafter, respondent No.3 rejected the petitioners'
request for mutation, inter alia, on the ground that the
land in question does not fall within Sy.Nos.1 and 4 of Jodi
Ranganathapura Village. It was further held that Sy.Nos.1
and 4 had already been acquired by the Government and
developed into residential layouts as part of the Vyalikaval
and Malleswaram Extensions by the BDA. It was also
observed that entries regarding these lands were already
reflected in the City Survey records. Aggrieved by this
rejection order dated 12.11.2014 (Annexure-M), the
petitioners preferred a revision petition before respondent
No.2, which came to be dismissed, thereby confirming the
order of respondent No.3. These concurrent orders have
been assailed in the present writ petition.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners, reiterating
the grounds urged in the petition, has submitted that
despite the conclusive adjudication of title in favour of
their father by the competent Civil Court, which was
NC: 2025:KHC:21881
HC-KAR
upheld by the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the authorities have failed to implement
the decree. It is submitted that the inaction and continued
defiance by the respondents not only violates the principle
of finality of judicial proceedings but also amounts to
contempt of Court. The learned counsel has relied on
additional documents filed with the memo dated
02.02.2025 and has strenuously contended that the
repeated refusal to effect mutation is patently illegal and
arbitrary.
9. Per contra, the State has filed its detailed
statement of objections supported by a synopsis dated
27.02.2025. The learned Additional Advocate General,
appearing for the State, has advanced two-fold
arguments. Firstly, it is contended that based on the
superimposition sketch prepared by the Enquiry
Officer/respondent No.3, the subject land does not
correspond to Sy.Nos.1 and 4 of Jodi Ranganathapura
Village. Secondly, it is submitted that the said survey
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21881
HC-KAR
numbers were already acquired by the Government/CITB
for formation of a residential layout, and that the
petitioners' father obtained the decree by allegedly
suppressing material facts. It is the State's case that
these aspects disentitle the petitioners to the relief sought.
10. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and
contentions, the following points arise for consideration
before this Court:
1) Whether the impugned order dated
12.11.2014 passed by respondent No.3 (Annexure-
M) is contrary to and in disregard of the findings and
declaration rendered by the competent Civil Court in
O.S.No.247/1983?
2) Whether the respondents, having allowed
the matter to attain finality through a judgment of
the Civil Court upheld by the Hon'ble High Court and
the Hon'ble Apex Court, are estopped from re-
agitating or disputing the petitioners' title and
possession by asserting that the schedule property
does not fall within Sy.Nos.1 and 4 of Jodi
Ranganathapura Village?
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21881
HC-KAR
Findings on points 1 and 2:
11. The petitioners and their late father have
unfortunately been embroiled in litigation since the year
1961. The genesis of the dispute can be traced to the
acquisition of the schedule property by the petitioners'
father, who purchased the same under a registered sale
deed dated 24.06.1959. Following the purchase, the
petitioners' father approached the then City Improvement
Trust Board (CITB), presently known as the Bangalore
Development Authority (BDA), seeking permission to form
a residential layout in respect of the land bearing Survey
Nos.1 and 4 of Jodi Ranganathapura Village. Though the
Chairman of the CITB initially accepted part payment
towards layout formation, the proposal was subsequently
stalled at the instance of the then Commissioner of the
Bangalore City Corporation. This obstruction compelled the
petitioners' father to initiate civil proceedings by instituting
a suit in O.S.No.1367/1961, which was later renumbered
as O.S.No.247/1983.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21881
HC-KAR
12. In this context, the defence taken by the
Bangalore City Corporation in the said suit assumes
significance. This Court, while adjudicating the Regular
First Appeal in RFA No.464/1984, has succinctly
summarized the Corporation's defence in paragraph 3 of
its judgment. Further, the reasoning and findings of the
Court are elaborated in paragraph 10. These two
paragraphs are central to understanding the nature of the
dispute and the issues adjudicated and the same are
extracted herein below for ready reference:
" 3. The defendant resisted the suit on the following
grounds:-
.........The plaintiff was not put in possession of the
properties by his vendors. It is true that the plaintiff
obtained a no objection certificate from the City
Improvement Trust Board for forming a layout. He was
also called upon to deposit money at Rs.6/- per square
yard. It is not known whether the plaintiff has deposited
any portion of the said layout charges. The plaintiff has
obtained no objection certificate from the City
Improvement Trust Board by misrepresenting the facts
to it. The City Improvement Trust Board reconsidered
the matter in its meeting held on 23-3-1962. The City
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21881
HC-KAR
Improvement Trust Board passed the following
resolutions:-
"Resolved that (1) as Mr.Chinnaswamy
obtained the 'No Objection Certificate' under
misrepresentation of facts and since the S.Nos.1
and 4 of Jodi Ranganathapura for which No
Objection Certificate was issued is not the land on
which he is forming the lay-out under the
regularisation scheme, the No Objection
Certificate issued to be cancelled immediately.
(2) If Mr.Chinnaswamy desires to reconsider
his request for the issue of No Objection
Certificate in respect of land on S.Nos. 1 and 4,
Jodi Ranga-nathapura, he must substantially
prove his title to the land. He must produce the
mutation certificate without any conditions
attached to it and he must get the boundaries for
his lands duly fixed by the Survey and Settlement
Department.
(3) In case of clause 2 read above, the subject
with all details be placed before the Board for
consideration. The Corporation of Bangalore be
also intimated in this behalf."
xxxxxxxx
" 10. As can be seen from the written statement
of the defendant, the defendant has stated in his written
statement as:-
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21881
HC-KAR
"It may be true that there was a sale deed
dated 24-6-1959 in favour of the plaintiff
executed by Kannamma, Shanmugam and
Kadirvelu. It is not correct to say that the
schedule land forms part of S. Nos. 1 and 4 of
Jodi Ranganathapura village. The land alleged to
have been purchased by the plaintiff from his
vendors is part of the land of water village and
that land belongs to the defendant-Corporation."
These assertions in the written statement made by the
defendant show that the defendant wants to claim title
to S.Nos. 1 and 4 of Water Works Village and it does not
claim S.Nos. 1 and 4 of Jodi Ranganathapur village at
all."
13. Upon a careful examination of the defence set
up by the then Bangalore City Corporation in the suit
proceedings, two crucial contentions emerge. Firstly, the
primary defence advanced by the Corporation was that the
property claimed to have been purchased by the plaintiffs'
father under registered sale deed dated 24.06.1959 did
not, in fact, form part of Sy.Nos.1 and 4 of Jodi
Ranganathapura Village. Instead, it was asserted by the
Corporation that the land in question fell within the limits
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21881
HC-KAR
of Water Works Village and not within the revenue
jurisdiction of Jodi Ranganathapura Village. By taking such
a stand, the Corporation essentially denied the plaintiffs'
father's title by asserting that the lands in question were
part of the Water Works Village, over which the
Corporation claimed ownership and control.
14. This contention was comprehensively
considered and rejected by the Trial Court, which, upon
appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on
record, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs' father.
The findings and conclusions recorded by the Trial Court
were subsequently affirmed by this Court in RFA
No.464/1984. While concurring with the decision of the
Trial Court, this Court made certain significant
observations in paragraphs 12 to 15 of its judgment,
which go to the root of the controversy. These
observations are central to the present dispute and are
accordingly extracted herein below for ready reference:
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21881
HC-KAR
"12. The sale deed Exhibit p1 dated 6-2-1935
clearly shows that Annur Desikachar was the Jodidar of
Jodi Ranganathapur village and he sold the suit
properties to Krishnaswamy Pillay under the said sale
deed Exhibit P1 and put Krishnaswamy Pillay in
possession thereof. Since a an long time Jodi
Ranganathapur village was an unsurveyed village.
Therefore the non mention of the revision survey
number in the sale deed Exhibit P1 does not disprove
the title of the plaintiff. But looking to the boundary
description given in the sale deed Exhibit P1, it clearly
follows that the suit properties were sold by Annur
Desikachar and his sons to Krishnaswamy Pillay under a
sale deed Exhibit P1. The defendant does not claim title
to S. Nos.1 and 4 of Jodi Ranganathapur village. He
claims title to S. Nos. 1 and 4 of Water Works village. In
view of the fact that the defendant does not claim any
title to S. Nos. 1 and 4 of Jodi Ranganathapur village
and in view of the fact that the sale deed Exhibit P1
clearly transfers the suit properties with clear boundary
description to Krishnaswamy Pillay it is clearly
established beyond doubt that Annur Desikachar and his
sons sold the suit properties in favour of Krishnaswamy
Pillay on 6-2-1935. Further the evidence of P.W.1 that
Annur Desikachar was in possession of the suit
properties and was paying kandayam in respect of the
suit properties till the suit properties were sold to his
father Krishnaswamy Pillay and that Krishnaswamy
Pillay was put in possession of the suit properties on the
date of the sale deed Exhibit P1 itself and was paying
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21881
HC-KAR
kandayam thereof till he sold it to the plaintiff, is not
controverted by the defendant in the course of the
cross-examination of P.W.1. Therefore Krishnaswamy
Pillay's title to the properties conveyed under Exhibit P1
is beyond doubt and is unquestionable. That
Krishnaswamy Pillay continued to be in possession of
the properties conveyed to him under Exhibit P1, is not
seriously questioned at all by the defendant. That the
properties conveyed under Exhibit P1 are situate in Jodi
Ranganathapur village, is not seriously controverted by
the defendant, as can be seen from the written
statement filed by the defendant himself. Therefore I
have no hesitation to hold that Krishnaswamy Pillay's
title to the properties conveyed under Exhibit P1 and his
possession thereof are beyond doubt. Krishnaswamy
Pillay's widow Kann and his two sons Shanmugam P.W.1
and Kadervelu P.W.2 sold the properties to the plaintiff
Chinnaswamy Mudaliar for Rs.4,500/- under Exhibit P2
dated 24-6-1959. The evidence of P.W.1 and 2 that they
and their mother Kannamma sold the suit properties to
the plaintiff for Rs.4,500/- under the sale deed Exhibit
P2 dated 24-6-1959; that they put the plaintiff in
possession of the suit properties and that the plaintiff
continued to be in possession of the suit properties and
was paying kandayam in regard thereto since then,
merits to be accepted. The mutation entry Exhibit P3
shows that the suit properties were mutated in the
name of the plaintiff immediately after the purchase of
the suit properties by him. The Kandayam receipt
Exhibit P11 shows that the plaintiff paid Kandayam for
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21881
HC-KAR
1960-61 in regard to the suit properties. If he had
nothing to do with the suit properties, he would not
have paid kandayam as per Exhibit P11. .................."
"13. ...................Exhibit P7 shows that the
necessary permission had been accorded to the plaintiff
to form the roads in S.Nos. 1 and 4 of Jodi
Ranganathapura village and that the work should be
carried out under the supervision of the Board. Exhibit
P8 is a notice dated 4-12-1961 issued by the defendant
Corporation to the plaintiff under Section 232 of the
Bangalore Corporation Act to remove the encroachment
within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice.
The material portion thereof reads as:-
"It has been brought to my notice that you
have encroached the Corporation vacant land
behind Sankey Tank Road (southern side) and
forming a layout unauthorisedly. "
This notice Exhibit P8 does not speak that the area
where the plaintiff was forming the layout, was situate
in Water Works village. It does not deny the situation of
the suit properties in Jodi Ranganathapur village. It does
not even show that the suit properties belonged to the
defendant and that they are in possession of the
defendant. Therefore the notice Exhibit P8 issued by the
defendant Corporation itself in a way supports the case
of the plaintiff himself."
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21881
HC-KAR
" 14. The Deccan Herald Notification Exhibit P9
reads as:-
"Public are hereby informed that a layout is
being formed by one Sri M.Chinnaswamy in and
round about Survey Nos. 1 and 4 of Jodi Ranga-
nathapuram, which is said to have been approved
by the City Improvement Trust Board. "
It further says as:-
"A part of the layout is actually on the land
belonging to the Water Supply Department and
the remaining portion is a water-logged area."
Similar is the Notification in Prajavani, Exhibit
P10. The Prajavani Notification shows that the area in
question is to the south of Sankey Tank Bund road.
These two Notification clearly belie the story of the
defendant that the suit properties are situate in Water
Works Village and that they are not situate in Jodi
Ranganathapura Village at all. ...........................................
By this letter, the Assistant Commissioner requested the
Deputy Commissioner, Land Records, to send the
revenue sketches of S. Nos.1 and 4 of Jodi
Ranganathapur village and to find out whether any area
of the Government had been encorached upon. It shows
that the surveyor attached to the office of the Assistant
Commissioner had expressed his inability to measure
the area as it was unsurveyed jodi village. This also
supports the case of the plaintiff that the suit properties
forming part of S.Nos.1 and 4 of Jodi Ranganathapur
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21881
HC-KAR
village belonged to the plaintiff by virtue of the purchase
made by him. Exhibit P16 is a reply to Exhibit P15. It is
sent by the Deputy Commissioner, Land Records, to the
Assistant Commissioner. It reads as:-
"With reference to the above subject, I writeto
state that K.G.Ranganathapura village, Bangalore
North taluk, has not yet been surveyed and settled.
Only valuation survey has been done. The Survey
numbers 1 and 4 are classed as dry and entered in
the name of Krishnacharya as per pahani sud 1879.
The valuation tippans are available. The Tippans of
valuation survey are not authenticated and they
would only show the state of position then. If
necessary the records may be consulted."
This also goes to show that even as per the
Tippani extracts, S. Nos. 1 and 4 have been shown as
standing in the name of Krishnacharya ever since before
1879 onwards. The father of Annur Desikachar who is
the vendor under the sale deed Exhibit P1, is
Krishnacharya."
"15. It is undisputed that the revenue records do
not show the existence of the Water Works village at all.
It might be that the Water Works Department might be
carrying on some work near about Jodi Ranganathapur.
But it does not mean that the area where the Water
Works Department was carrying on the work, belonged
to the Water Works Department or the defendant."
(emphasis supplied)
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21881
HC-KAR
15. On a close reading of the findings and
conclusions recorded by this Court in RFA No.464/1984, it
becomes unequivocally clear that the judgment and decree
rendered by the Trial Court in O.S.No.247/1983, as
affirmed by this Court in appeal, conclusively declare that
the plaintiffs' father is the absolute owner of the suit
schedule properties. The Courts have categorically held
that the Bangalore City Corporation has no manner of
right, title, or interest over the said properties. These
concurrent findings of fact and law have attained finality
with the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition in SLP
No.14864/1986 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, the
issue regarding title and lawful possession stands
conclusively adjudicated in favour of the plaintiffs' father
and, by necessary implication, in favour of the present
petitioners as his legal heirs.
16. In this regard, paragraph 23 of the judgment
rendered by this Court in RFA No.464/1984 is particularly
significant, as it encapsulates the core reasoning of the
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21881
HC-KAR
appellate Court in affirming the declaration of title. This
Court therefore finds it apposite to extract paragraph 23 of
the said judgment, which reads as under:
"23. According to the Defendants, Jodi
Ranganathapur village was vested in the Government
with effect from 1-2-1959 as per the provisions of the
Inams Abolition Act. It is true that the sale in favour of
the plaintiff under the sale deed Exhibit P2 is
subsequent to 1-2-1959. That as can be seen from
Exhibit P17 which is an order passed by the Special
Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition, all the lands in
Jodi Ranganathapur village had ceased to be agricultural
properties long before the introduction of the Inams
Abolition Act and almost all the area in Jodi
Ranganathapur village was used or was being used for
the purpose of house sites and for the purpose of
putting up buildings even long before the coming into
force of the Inams Abolition Act, and that thus the
provisions of the Inams Abolition Act did not apply to
such non-agricultural areas and that the area in Jodi
Ranganathapur village did not become vested in the
State Government under the Inams Abolition Act. It is
an order passed by the wing of the Government itself.
The Government has not disputed that order. None of
the claimants in Exhibit P17 appears to have questioned
that order. Thus the sale deed Exhibit P2, in my opinion,
clearly conveys the title in respect of the suit properties
to the plaintiff. Thus the evidence, oral and
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21881
HC-KAR
documentary, adduced by the plaintiff clearly establishes
that the properties in question are siituate in Jodi
Ranganathapur village and that Krishnaswamy Pillay
who had purchased the properties in dispute in question
under the sale deed Exhibit P1 dated 6-2-1935 from the
jodidar Annur Desikachar and his sons got clear title to
the properties conveyed under Exhibit P1 and that the
plaintiff who has purchased the suit properties from the
widow and sons of Krishnaswamy Pillay under the sale
deed Exhibit P2, got clear title to the properties in
dispute. The evidence on record clearly establishes that
the defendant has no title to the suit properties or that it
was in possession of them at any time or that they were
being used as pasture lands by it at any time, thus the
trial court was justified in concluding on the strength of
the evidence above referred to that the plaintiff had
established his title to the suit properties and also had
shown that ever since 24-6-1959 the date of the sale
deed Exhibit P2 he has been in possession and
enjoyment of the suit properties. As already shown
above, the defendant has not placed before the court
any evidence to show that the suit properties are situate
in Water Works village or that it has got title to them or
that it was in possession of them at any time or that
they were being used by it as pasture lands at any
time."
(emphasis supplied)
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21881
HC-KAR
17. Upon a thorough reading of the findings
recorded by this Court in RFA No.464/1984, it is evidently
clear that this Court, while referring to the registered sale
deed executed in favour of the petitioners' father marked
as Ex.P-2 has categorically held that the said document
has effectively conveyed valid title in respect of the
schedule properties. This Court has further affirmed the
conclusions of the Trial Court, observing in no uncertain
terms that the schedule property is indeed located within
the revenue jurisdiction of Jodi Ranganathapura Village. It
is also clearly held that the vendor under Ex.P-2 had valid
and subsisting title to convey the land, and that the
petitioners' father lawfully acquired ownership of the
property through the said sale deed.
18. This Court has also made a categorical finding
that the then Bangalore City Corporation neither had title
nor was in possession of the suit schedule property. These
conclusive observations were based on an appraisal of
both oral and documentary evidence, and were made in
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21881
HC-KAR
affirmation of the judgment of the court of first instance.
Thus, the question of ownership and possession was
settled once and for all.
19. The decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.
No.247/1983 and affirmed by this Court in RFA
No.464/1984 has attained finality with the dismissal of the
Special Leave Petition in SLP No.14864/1986 by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court has given a quietus to the title dispute, and the
findings recorded therein are binding on all parties.
Despite this, the authorities have taken a diametrically
opposite stand in collateral proceedings, particularly in the
context of the petitioners' request for mutation of their
names in the property records.
20. This Court is constrained to take serious note of
the stand adopted by the respondent authorities in the
ancillary proceedings, wherein they have questioned the
very title and location of the property, thereby attempting
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21881
HC-KAR
to re-open issues that have already been conclusively
adjudicated by a competent Civil Court and affirmed up to
the level of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The stand so
taken is not only untenable but is also plainly
contemptuous in nature, as it flies in the face of binding
judicial pronouncements.
21. In order to appreciate the gravity and
impropriety of the stand taken by the State and its
authorities, it is necessary to extract the relevant portions
from the statement of objections filed by the respondents.
A perusal of paragraphs 4, 5, and 8 of the objections
reveals that the respondents are, in effect, attempting to
re-litigate the very same issue of title and location of the
property, which has already been put to rest. The relevant
excerpts from the said paragraphs are extracted below:
"4. The suit was initially filed in the First Munsiff
Court, Bangalore, in 1961, and was numbered as O.S.
No.1367/61. The Munsiff after recording the evidence
decreed the suit regarding declaration, by its judgment
and decree dated 19-1-1965 and dismissed the
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21881
HC-KAR
plaintiff's claim regarding damages. The defendant
Corporation being aggrieved by the said judgment and
decree dated 19-1-1965 approached the appellate court
1.e. II Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore, with
R.A.No.116/65. The lower appellate court set aside the
judgment and decree passed by the First Munsiff and
allowed the appeal by its judgment and decree dated
20th March, 1972 and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff
being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated
20th March, 1972, passed by the II Additional Civil
Judge, Bangalore, approached this Court with
R.S.A.No.941 of 1972. The plaintiff produced a copy of
the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner
for Inam Abolition, under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. during
the pendency of Second Appeal. This Court by its
judgment and decree dated 31-7-1978 allowed the
additional evidence produced by the plaintiff under
Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. and set aside the judgment and
decree passed by both the courts below and remanded
the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal with the
following observations:-
"The respondent Corporation has no
objection for allowing the application filed by the
appellant in this Hon'ble Court and remanding
the matter after setting aside the decrees of the
courts below and affording opportunity to both
the parties to adduce further evidence.
It must be stated that if the additional
evidence is permitted, the matter must go back
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21881
HC-KAR
for further investigation and the appeal could
not be disposed of by us. The Corporation itself
since has no objection, our task has become
easier.
We record the memo, allow this appeal, set
aside the decrees of the courts below and
remand the matter to the court of first instance
to admit the additional evidence produced by
the plaintiff in this Court and dispose of the suit
after affording further opportunity to both the
parties to adduce further evidence if they so
desire. The additional evidence produced by the
appellant in this Court shall be transmitted to
the trial court as expeditiously as possible along
with this order."
"5. It appears that there was also a Miscellaneous
Second Appeal in M.S.A.No.9 of 1968 arising out of the
same proceedings. As can be seen from the order sheet
maintained in the trial court, it appears that M.S.A.No.9
of 1968 was disposed of on 3-3-1969 and the appeal
had been remanded to the appellate court. Since then
the matter had remained in cold storage. "
"8. The arguments of the learned counsel Shri.
Shiva Prakash for the appellant and of Shri K.S.Ramadas
for the plaintiff-respondent were heard. The sole point
that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether
the plaintiff proves his title to the suit properties."
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21881
HC-KAR
22. Upon perusal of the defence set up by the State
in the statement of objections, this Court is more than
satisfied that the respondent authorities have failed to
show the requisite deference and respect to a judgment
rendered by a competent Civil Court, which has been
subsequently affirmed by this Court and the Hon'ble Apex
Court. What is more disconcerting is that the stand now
taken by the authorities is not only contrary to the settled
legal position but also directly contradicts the legal opinion
obtained by the BBMP itself from one of its empanelled
legal advisors. The said legal opinion, placed on record
along with the memo of additional documents dated
02.02.2025, clearly states that in view of the conclusive
declaration of title in favour of the petitioners' father in
O.S.No.247/1983, the BBMP no longer retains any claim
over the schedule property. The legal advisor has
unequivocally opined that, as the title of M. Chinnaswamy
Mudaliar has attained finality, the City Survey authorities
are duty-bound to carry out the necessary mutation in
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21881
HC-KAR
accordance with the survey measurements undertaken,
and that there exists no legal impediment to effectuate the
change of katha.
23. A conjoint reading of the statement of
objections and the synopsis filed by the State clearly
reveals that the conduct of the respondent authorities in
persisting with a wholly untenable position borders on
administrative obstinacy and legal defiance. Such conduct,
especially in the face of binding judicial pronouncements,
is grossly unfair and deserves to be condemned in the
strongest possible terms by this Court.
24. It must also be noted that before the Civil
Court, the exact location and identification of the schedule
property was extensively addressed. The boundaries and
survey numbers were elaborately discussed, and
significantly, identification of the property was never in
dispute during the civil proceedings. The records reveal
that the petitioners' father had paid taxes in respect of the
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21881
HC-KAR
schedule property for the year 1960-61, which is
evidenced by Ex.P-11 in the civil proceedings. Mutation
entries were also produced and taken into account. The
Trial Court acknowledged the possession of the plaintiffs'
father, and such possession stood corroborated by several
documents. Ex.P-5 is a challan submitted by the
petitioners' father seeking permission for layout formation;
Ex.P-7 is the permission accorded by the Chairman of the
Board to form a residential layout specifically in Sy.Nos.1
and 4; and Ex.P-8 is a notice issued in connection with
the layout development, which also refers to the same
lands. Furthermore, the plaint schedule furnished in the
civil suit gave a clear and unambiguous description of the
property in question. This description, which stood
accepted by the Civil Court, has been affirmed all the way
up to the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, there is
absolutely no ambiguity regarding the identity or location
of the schedule property.
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21881
HC-KAR
25. In light of the conclusive findings recorded by
the Civil Court and affirmed by this Court and the Hon'ble
Apex Court, this Court proceeds to examine the reasons
assigned by respondent No.3 while rejecting the
petitioners' claim. A perusal of the impugned order reveals
that respondent No.3 has rejected the petitioners' request
for mutation on the sole premise that the schedule
property does not fall within Sy.Nos.1 and 4 of Jodi
Ranganathapura Village. Respondent No.3 has further
observed that the lands in question have already been
acquired by the Government for the purpose of forming
Vyalikaval and Malleshwaram extensions through the BDA,
and that the area is now fully developed with buildings
having come up.
26. These observations are not only contrary to the
judicial findings recorded by the Civil Court, but are also
contrary to the documentary evidence placed on record by
the petitioners. The assertion that Sy.Nos.1 and 4 have
been acquired stands refuted by the additional documents
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21881
HC-KAR
produced at Annexure-S, which include a Joint Inspection
Report. This Court deems it appropriate to extract the
relevant portion of the said Joint Inspection Report
tendered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, which
clearly discredits the claim of prior acquisition. The
relevant portion of the report is culled out and extracted
as under:
" XXXX
ೕಲ ಂಡ ಪ ಕರಣದ ಅ ಾರರು ಪ ರುವ ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಉತರ
!ಾಲೂಕು, ಕಸ ಾ $ೋಬ&, 'ೋ( ರಂಗ)ಾಥಪ+ರ ,ಾ ಮದ ಸ.ೆ ನಂ.1
ಮತು 40ೆ ಸಂಬಂ1 ದ ಭೂ3ಾ41ೕನದ ಾಖ6ೆಗಳನು ಪ7 ೕ ಸ6ಾ8, ಸ.ೆ
ನಂ.1ರ ನ 02 ಎಕ:ೆ 18 ಗುಂ;ೆ ಜ=ೕನನು ಐ?@Aಂ ಾಗ ೕ
ತದನಂತರದ Bಾ 10ಾರCಂ ಾಗ ೕ ಭೂ3ಾ41ೕನಪ( 0ೊಂ(ರುವ+Cಲ.
ಆದE7ಂದ ಸ.ೆ ನಂ.1 Bಾ 10ಾರದ ಸ4!ಾ8ರುವ+Cಲ.
ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಉತರ !ಾಲೂಕು, ಕಸ ಾ $ೋಬ&, 'ೋ(
ರಂಗ)ಾಥಪ+ರ ,ಾ ಮದ ಸ.ೆ ನಂ.4ರ ನ 18 ಎಕ:ೆ 29 ಗುಂ;ೆ ಜ=ೕFನ
16 ಎಕ:ೆ 21 ಗುಂ;ೆ ಜ=ೕನನು ಅ1ಸೂಚ)ೆ ಸಂ.ಎH.11109-
ಎಂ.ಐ.69.48.12 C)ಾಂಕ 28.03.1949ರಂ!ೆ .ೈJಾK 0ಾವH
ಬLಾವMೆ,ಾ8 ಐ?@Aಂದ ಭೂ3ಾ41ೕನಪ( 0ೊಂ(ದುE.
ಭೂ3ಾ41ೕನಪ( 0ೊಂ(ರುವ ಪNರ O ೕಣ ವನು ಬLಾವMೆ,ಾ8
ಉಪPೕ8 0ೊಂ(ರುತ ೆ."
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21881
HC-KAR
In view of the foregoing reasons, point Nos.1 and 2
formulated above are answered in the affirmative.
27. Conclusions:
(i) Upon a comprehensive evaluation of the material
placed on record, including the pleadings, documentary
evidence, the orders impugned in the writ petition, and
more importantly, the judgments rendered by the
competent Civil Court in O.S.No.247/1983, affirmed by
this Court in RFA No.464/1984 and subsequently by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No.14864/1986, this Court is
left with no manner of doubt that the issue relating to the
title and possession of the schedule property stands
conclusively adjudicated in favour of the petitioners'
father.
(ii) The findings recorded in the civil proceedings are
comprehensive and leave no room for ambiguity. The Civil
Court has categorically declared that the petitioners' father
was the absolute owner of the schedule property situated
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21881
HC-KAR
in Sy.Nos.1 and 4 of Jodi Ranganathapura Village. It was
further held that the Bangalore City Corporation had no
title or possession over the said land. These findings,
having been upheld at all appellate levels, have attained
finality and bind the parties to the lis, including the
successors and instrumentalities of the State.
(iii) Despite the authoritative pronouncement by the
civil Court, and its affirmation by the constitutional Courts,
the respondent authorities have repeatedly and
consciously chosen to ignore the binding nature of the
judgment and have instead attempted to reopen settled
issues under the guise of administrative enquiry. The
impugned orders passed by respondent No.3, and affirmed
by respondent No.2, are not only in direct conflict with the
judicial findings but also amount to a collateral attack on
the civil decree which has long since attained finality.
(iv) This Court is particularly disturbed by the fact
that the respondents have set up a defence that is
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21881
HC-KAR
materially identical to the defence raised and repelled in
the civil suit. By attempting to question the identity and
location of the schedule property, and by asserting an
acquisition over lands which have been adjudicated upon,
the respondents are in effect re-litigating matters that are
barred by the principles of res judicata. Such conduct by
public authorities undermines the sanctity of judicial
decisions and shakes the very foundation of rule of law.
(v) What aggravates the situation is the fact that the
respondent authorities have taken a stand that is not only
inconsistent with the judgment of the civil Court but is also
contrary to the legal opinion tendered by their own
empanelled counsel. The said legal opinion, placed on
record along with the memo dated 02.02.2025, clearly
advises the authorities to respect the declaration of title
and to proceed with mutation in favour of the petitioners.
The wilful disregard of such legal advice and the deliberate
act of passing orders in the teeth of binding judicial
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21881
HC-KAR
pronouncements speaks volumes about the arbitrary and
high-handed conduct of the respondents.
(vi) The entire course of action adopted by the
respondents reflects a clear abuse of power and
administrative overreach. It evidences a conscious
attempt to defeat the lawful rights of the petitioners
flowing from a decree of a competent Court. Such conduct
is not only impermissible in law but also amounts to
contemptuous disregard of judicial discipline. Public
authorities, especially when discharging quasi-judicial or
administrative functions, are expected to act fairly,
reasonably and in accordance with law. The conduct
displayed in the present case falls woefully short of these
standards.
(vii) This Court is therefore of the considered view
that the impugned orders passed by respondent No.3,
dated 12.11.2014, and the order passed by respondent
No.2 affirming the same, are liable to be quashed for
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21881
HC-KAR
being arbitrary, perverse, and in gross violation of the
binding judgment of the competent Civil Court.
28. In the considered opinion of this Court, this is
not a mere case of administrative error or bona fide
misunderstanding. The conduct of the respondent
authorities in repeatedly denying the petitioners their
lawful rights, despite conclusive adjudication, amounts to
harassment and a gross abuse of authority. Such conduct
deserves to be deprecated in no uncertain terms and calls
for exemplary costs.
29. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds
to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is allowed;
(ii) The impugned order dated 12.11.2014
passed by the respondent No.3 vide Annexure-M
as well as the order passed by the respondent
No.2 dated 18.02.2016 vide Annexure-N
affirming the same, are hereby quashed;
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21881
HC-KAR
(iii) The respondents are hereby directed to
forthwith give effect to the judgment and decree
passed in O.S.No.247/1983 and affirmed in RFA
No.464/1984 and SLP No.14864/1986, by
mutating the names of the petitioners in respect
of the schedule property in the relevant revenue
and survey records, including the property
register/card maintained by the City Survey
Department. Such action shall be completed
within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order;
(iv) Exemplary costs of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh only) is imposed on
respondent Nos.2 and 3 jointly and severally, for
having wilfully and repeatedly acted contrary to
binding judicial decisions and for causing
unnecessary hardship and prolonged litigation to
the petitioners.
SD/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
CA
