Karnataka High Court
Smt. Rajalakshmamma vs The Deputy Commissioner on 13 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46203-DB
WA No. 958 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 958 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. RAJALAKSHMAMMA
W/O SUBRAMANYA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
1. SMT. PREMA
W/O JAGADEESHA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
2. SMT. VASANTHI
W/O VENKATARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
Digitally
signed by 3. SMT. RAMADEVI
AMBIKA H B W/O PRAKASH NAIKA
Location: AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
High Court
of Karnataka 4. SMT. TARAMMA
W/O B N GOPALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
5. SMT. SHYLAJA
W/O PAPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
6. SRI R P SATHISH KUMAR
S/O K C RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46203-DB
WA No. 958 of 2024
HC-KAR
APPELLANTS ARE ALL
REP. BY GPA HOLDER
SRI S A BHARATH
S/O LATE ASHOK
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT NAGAPPA COMPLEX
3RD CROSS, GANDHI BAZAR
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK - 577 202
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PRASANNA V R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
BALARAJ ARUS ROAD
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
SHIVAMOGGA
SUB DIVISON
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201
3. THE TAHSILDAR
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201
4. SHIVAMOGGA CITY MUNCIPAL CORPORATION
B H ROAD
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
MR. A G NAGARAJA
...RESPONDENTS
(SMT.NAMITHA MAHESH B.G, AGA FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3
SRI A.V.GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT No.4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 28.05.2024 IN WP No.40236/2017 (KLR-RES)
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE
COURT AND PASS APPROPRIATE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER TO
MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:46203-DB
WA No. 958 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an
order dated 28.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in
Writ Petition No.40236/2017 (KLR-RES). The said petition was
filed by Shivamogga City Municipal Corporation [respondent No.4]
impugning an order dated 11.11.2014 passed by the Assistant
Commissioner [respondent No.2] in PDA No.156/2013-14 as well
as an order dated 03.11.2016 passed by the Deputy
Commissioner [respondent No.1] in R Misc No.12/2015-16.
2. In terms of the order dated 11.11.2014, the name of the
Municipal Commissioner, City Municipal Corporation, Shivamogga
[the Corporation] which was entered in column No.9 of RTC in
respect of lands measuring 0-27 acres falling in Survey No.17/1;
measuring 1-13 acres in Survey No.17/4; and 1-18 acres in Survey
No.17/5 of Urugadoor Village, Nedige Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk
[subject lands] had been removed.
NC: 2025:KHC:46203-DB
HC-KAR
3. The said order was upheld by the Deputy Commissioner
[respondent No.1].
4. It is the case of the Corporation that the subject lands were
acquired pursuant to the preliminary notification issued on
18.01.1954 and the final notification issued on 18.03.1954. Since
the lands are vested with the Corporation, it's name was entered in
the land records.
5. The appellants, set up a rival claim, tracing their title to the
subject lands through one Sri K.C.Ramaiah.
6. It is material to note that Sri K.C.Ramaiah had filed a suit,
being O.S No.323/1973, before the learned Munsiff at
Shivamogga, inter alia, seeking a decree of permanent injunction
restraining the Corporation from interfering with the peaceful
possession of the subject lands. The learned counsel for the
appellants submits that the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn.
However, the same is stoutly contested. The order passed in O.S
No.323/1973 is not on record. However, there is no dispute that
the suit was dismissed.
NC: 2025:KHC:46203-DB
HC-KAR
7. It is material to note that the impugned order specifically
notes that the said suit had been dismissed and Sri K.C. Ramaiah
had accepted that the subject lands had been acquired in
accordance with law.
8. It is not disputed that thereafter, a registered lease deed
dated 15.01.1974 was executed by the Corporation, whereby Sri
K.C. Ramaiah was granted lease in respect of the subject lands for
a period of five years. And, the same was registered with the
concerned sub-registrar. The said lease was also renewed for a
further period of two years, commencing from 16.01.1979. In this
view there can be no dispute that the said Sri K.C Ramaiah had
accepted the title of the lessor, that is, the Corporation.
9. After the lease had expired, Sri K.C. Ramaiah sought
extension of the same which was rejected. In order to retain the
possession of the subject lands, Sri K.C Ramaiah once again filed
a suit, being O.S.No.150/1981, seeking declaration of his title and
permanent injunction. The said suit was withdrawn.
10. Undaunted by the fact that he was not successful in either of
the two earlier suits in asserting the title; Sri K.C Ramaiah filed yet
NC: 2025:KHC:46203-DB
HC-KAR
another suit being O.S.No.392/1984, inter alia, seeking a
declaration that he is the owner of the subject lands. The said suit
was dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 30.09.1997.
The issues struck in the said suit included the issues as to whether
Sri K.C. Ramaiah is the owner of the subject lands and whether he
was in lawful possession thereof. The said issues were decided
against Sri K.C. Ramaiah.
11. The trial Court held in unambiguous term that the plaintiff
(K.C. Ramaiah) was not the owner of the subject lands. The said
judgment also included observations to the effect that the lands
belong to the defendant Municipality. Concededly, no appeal was
preferred against the said judgment and the same has become
final.
12. In view of the above, it is not open for the appellants to now
once again claim that the subject lands were not acquired. In view
of the clear findings of the Civil Court rejecting the claim of Sri K.C.
Ramaiah of ownership and accepting the Corporation's ownership
of the subject lands, the land records must necessarily reflect the
same.
NC: 2025:KHC:46203-DB
HC-KAR
13. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the decision of
the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition filed by the
Corporation and setting aside the orders dated 11.11.2014 and
03.11.2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy
Commissioner, directing removal of the entries in the name of the
Corporation in the land records in respect to the subject lands.
14. The appeal is unmerited and is, accordingly, dismissed.
15. The pending interlocutory application also stands disposed
of.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
AHB
