Sri D A Munivenkatappa v. The State of Karnataka

((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:38612( WP(No.(18056(of(2021( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010364752021( ( ( (

IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( TH DATED(THIS(THE(27 (DAY(OF(JULY,(2026(

BEFORE(

THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(E.S.INDIRESH(

WRIT(PETITION(NO.(18056(OF(2021((KLR-RES)(

BETWEEN:((

, , SRI,D,A,,MUNIVENKATAPPA,, DEAD,BY,HIS,LRS,, ,

1., SMT,ASHWATHAMMA,

AGED,ABOUT,55,YEARS, W/O,LATE,SRI,D,A,MUNIVENKATAPPA, ,

2., SMT,NALINA, AGED,ABOUT,41,YEARS, D/O,LATE,SRI,D,A,MUNIVENKATAPPA, W/O,SRI,CHANDRASHEKAR., ,

3., SRI,ANAND, AGED,ABOUT,35,YEARS, Digitallytisignedtiby S/O,LATE,SRI,D,A,MUNIVENKATAPPA., DHANALAKSHMI ,MURTHY

4., SMT,LAKSHMI,Location:0HI GH COURTOF AGED,ABOUT,32,YEARS, KARNATAKA D/O,LATE,SRI,D,A,MUNIVENKATAPPA., ,

5., SRI,SRINATH, AGED,ABOUT,30,YEARS, S/O,LATE,SRI,D,A,MUNIVENKATAPPA, , , ALL,ARE,R/AT,ALAGONDANAHALLI,VILLAGE, JEDIGENEHALLI,HOBLI,,HOSAKOTE,TALUK, BENGALURU,RURAL,DISTRICT-562,114., …PETITIONERS, (BY,SRI.G,PAPI,REDDY,,SENIOR,ADVOCATE,FOR, SRI.,VARUN,P,.,,ADVOCATE), ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:38612( WP(No.(18056(of(2021( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010364752021( ( ( AND:( ,

1., THE,STATE,OF,KARNATAKA, REVENUE,DEPARTMENT, MULTI-STORIED,BUILDINGS, DR,AMBEDKAR,VEEDHI, BENGALURU,560,001, REP,BY,ITS,SECRETARY., ,

2., THE,DEPUTY,COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU,RURAL,DISTRICT, DISTRICT,ADMINISTRATIVE,BHAWAN, FIRST,FLOOR,BEERASANDRA,VILLAGE, KUNDANA,HOBLI,,DEVANAHALLI,TALUK, BENGALURU,RURAL,DISTRICT,562,110., ,

3., THE,TAHSILDAR, HOSKOTE,TALUK, BENGALURU,RURAL,DISTRICT,562,114, …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.SPOORTHY,HEGDE,N,,HCGP), , THIS,WP,,IS, FILED, UNDER,ARTICLES,226,AND,227,OF,THE, CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,PRAYING,TO,QUASH,THE,ORDER,OF,THE, R2, DATED, 16.07.2021, PASSED, IN, CASE, NO., REVISION, PETITION, NO.197, OF, 2013, VIDE, ANNEXURE-G, AND, CONSEQUENTLY, DIRECT, THE,R3,TO,MUTATE,THE,REVENUE,ENTRIES,IN,THE,NAMES,OF,THE, PETITIONERS,IN,RESPECT,OF,THE,SCHEDULE,PROPERTY,BASED,ON, INHERITANCE,AND,ETC., , THIS,PETITION,,COMING,ON,FOR,ORDERS,,THIS,DAY,,ORDER, WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, CORAM:, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,E.S.INDIRESH, ORAL(ORDER( ,,,,,,,,,,In, this, writ, petition,, petitioners, are, assailing, the, order, dated, 16.07.2021,, in, R.P.No.197/2013, (Annexure-

G), inter alia, seeking for a direction to respondent No. 3 to mutate revenue entries in the name of the petitioners.

¶2The relevant facts for adjudication of this petition are that, the husband of petitioner No.1 and the father of petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 – D.A.Munivenkatappa was in cultivation of the land bearing Sy.No.1, Block No. 41, measuring to an extent of two acres in Alagondanahalli Village, Jadigenahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, as an unauthorized occupant, since 1952. Accordingly, the deceased D.A.Munivenkatappa had filed an application, seeking grant of the land and, as such, the respondent - Authorities have, on upset price, had granted the land to the said D.A.Munivenkatappa and the same is produced at Annexure-A to the petition. Thereafter, the revenue entries transferred into the name of the original grantee – D.A.Munivenkatappa. Mutation register and other revenue records, as well as the sketch have been shown as Annexures-B, C series and D, in respect of the subject land.

¶3It is further stated that, O.S.No.593/1999 was also filed by the deceased – D.A.Munivenkatappa against the respondents before the Civil Judge (Principal) Senior Division, Bangalore District, Bangalore, seeking relief of declaration with consequential relief of injunction and the said suit came to be decreed on 05.12.2001 (Annexure-E). Thereafter, the deceased Munivenkatappa had also filed O.S.No.224/2003 for the relief of declaration and for permanent injunction. The same was also decreed as per the judgment and decree dated 05.04.2014 (Annexure-F1). Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioners that the respondent - Authorities have no authority under law to pass the impugned order, dated 16.07.2021 (Annexure-G), holding that the grant made in favour of the deceased is incorrect and contrary to law. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed.

¶4Sri G.Papireddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Varun Papireddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, invited the attention of this Court to the grant

made in favour of the deceased as well as the revenue entries, and submitted that, the findings recorded by respondent No.2 at paragraph No.4 of the impugned order at Annexure-G, is contrary to law. He further submitted that, the Bangalore District was not constituted during 1986 and therefore, submitted that, the impugned order at Annexure-G requires to be set aside.

¶5It is also argued by the learned Senior Counsel, by referring to the order dated 19.09.2024 (Annexure-H), that, there are two orders passed by respondent No. 2 on the same subject land and therefore, it is argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that, it is a clear case of non-application of mind by respondent No.2 and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.

¶6Per contra, learned HCGP justifies the orders passed by the respondent – Authorities.

¶7Having taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and on careful

consideration of the grant order dated 20.02.1970 (Annexure-A), would indicate that the grant has been made in favour of the deceased D.A.Munivenkatappa. Thereafter, mutation, RTC extracts and sketch have been prepared by the respondent - Authorities in respect of the subject land. That apart, it is forthcoming from the judgment and decree dated 05.04.2014 (Annexure-F1), in O.S.No.224/2003 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, wherein the original grantee has filed a suit, seeking relief of declaration with consequential reliefs and the said suit came to be decreed at Annexure-F1 to the writ petition, that, the deceased D.A.Munivenkatappa has been declared as the owner of the land in question. It is to be noted that, the respondent - Authorities were arrayed as defendant Nos.2 and 3 in O.S.No.593/1999. It is also to be noted from Annexure-F1, in the Judgment and Decree dated

05.04.2014, where the deceased D.A.Munivenkatappa has been declared as the owner of the land in question, and

decree has been made against the private respondents therein.

¶8In that view of the matter, taking into consideration, that the grant has been made in favour of the deceased D.A.Munivenkatappa way-back in 1970 and after 40 years, the respondent - Authorities have initiated proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, with an inordinate delay and further, the finding recorded by the respondent No.2 at Annexure-G, particularly in paragraph No.4, is contrary to the records and, therefore, I find force in the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners.

¶9That apart, despite the fact that respondent No. 2 has passed an order in R.P.No.197/2013 (Annexure-G), however, another order on the very same subject land against the deceased D.A.Munivenkatappa was passed on

19.09.2024 (Annexure-H) to the writ petition, would reflect the non-application of mind by respondent No.2.

¶10In that view of the matter, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

(ii) The order dated 16.07.2021 (Annexure-G) in R.P.No.197/2013 is, accordingly, set aside and respondent No.3 is directed to restore the revenue entries in the name of the petitioners in respect of the subject land, if the same has been changed during the course of the proceedings, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

Cm/- LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 14