IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO.23569/2015 (SC/ST) BETWEEN:
Smt.M.C.Vasundaramma W/o. Chikkaveerabhadrappa Aged about 71 years R/at No.228, ‘Omshivashakti Kumar Krupa’, Ward No.22 Prashanth Nagar, Devanahalli Bengaluru Rural District …Petitioner (By Sri V.R.Dattar, Senior Counsel for Sri N.Shankar Rangareji, Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka By its Secretary Department of Revenue M.S.Building, Bengaluru- 560 001 2. The Deputy Commissioner Revenue Division Bengaluru Rural District Bengaluru- 560 001 3. The Assistant Commissioner Doddaballapur Revenue Sub-Division Doddaballapur- 561 203 Bengaluru Rural District 4. The Tahsildar Devanahalli Taluk Devanahalli Bengaluru Rural District- 562 110 5. D.Anjinappa S/o. Late Dasappa Aged about 52 years R/at No.1, Goripalya Devanahalli Town Bengaluru Rural District- 562 110 6. Smt.Narayanamma D/o. Late Dasappa W/o. Krishnappa Aged about 45 years R/at Jalige village Kundan Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk Bengaluru Rural District- 562 110 7. Sri K.N.Eshwarappa S/o. Late K.G.Narayanappa Aged about 47 years R/at No.4/4, Ramanna Pete Siddannagalli Cross Bengaluru- 560 002 ...Respondents (By Smt.Savithramma, HCGP for R1 to R4; Sri A.Chandrachud, Advocate for R7;
R5 served and unrepresented; Notice to R6 is dispensed with vide Court order dated 07.02.2019) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the notification dated 08.05.2015 (Annexure-V) passed by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District.
This writ petition coming on for orders, this day, the court made the following:
ORDER Notice to respondent No.6 is dispensed with in view of the nature of the dispute sought for adjudication.
2. The petitioner claims to be an agreement holder prior in point of time being executed by the son of the grantee and has assailed the order at Annexure-V, whereby the permission has been granted to respondent No.5. The petitioner states that an application is filed before the Assistant Commissioner seeking permission containing the details as regards the agreement of sale both to the petitioner herein as well as respondent No.7. The petitioner further states that subsequently, son of the grantee i.e. respondent No.5 has sold the property to respondent No.7 and hence, states that the order at Annexure-V is to be set aside. It is further submitted that the suit for specific performance has been filed wherein respondent No.7 and respondent No.5 have been arrayed as defendants in O.S.No.161/2016 pending before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli.
3. Permission i.e. granted as such cannot be assailed.
Both the petitioner and the 7th respondent claim rights under the permission to sell the land that has been granted as per the impugned order dated 08.05.2015. It is only in pursuance of such permission given that the petitioner is asserting rights in O.S.No.161/2016. Hence, the petitioner in estopped from challenging the impugned order. It is also to be noted that the present proceedings do not relate to revoking of the permission that has been granted. The inter se dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.7 cannot vitiate Annexure-V.
It is made clear that the rights of the parties would be subject to the eventual outcome of the proceedings before the Civil Court. All contentions of the parties are kept open.
Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE KSR