IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT PETITION NO.5559 OF 2016(KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: MR.N.CHANDRASHEKHAR ALSO KNOWN AS N.CHANDRASHEKHAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O LATE M.NANJUNDA REDDY, RESIDING AT NO.1146, 22ND CROSS ROAD, NEAR 23RD MAIN ROAD, 2ND SECTOR, H.S.R.LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 102. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI D.M.GURURAJ, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-1 BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU DISTRICT – 560 002.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS TAHASILDAR, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 036.
3. SMT.H.P.SUJAYAMMA D/O LATE H.P.PARTHASARATHI REDDY, MAJOR, NO.1, UMA SHANKARA COMPLEX, KUNDALAHALLI VILLAGE, KRISHNARAJAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 036.
4. SMT.KAMALAMMA D/O LATE H.P.PARTHASARATHI REDDY, MAJOR, NANJAPPA LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU – 560 097.
5. SMT.PRABHAVATHI W/O LATE H.P.GOPALAREDDY, MAJOR, NO.51, 1ST FLOOR, 12TH CROSS, NANJAPPA LAYOUT EXTENSION, DODDACHANNAPPA GARDENS, BENGALURU – 560 097.
6. SMT.PUSHPALATHA W/O N.R.LOKESH AND D/O LATE H.P.KANTHAMMA MAJOR, NO.05/154/5, 6TH CROSS, OPP:SRI RAMA TEMPLE, DODDANEKKUNDI, BENGALURU – 560 097.
7. SRI HANUMAPPA REDDY S/O LATE H.P.KANTHAMMA, MAJOR C/O J.JAGADEESH REDDY, H.A.L.MAIN ROAD, KUNDALAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 037.
8. SRI H.SUDHAKARA S/O LATE H.P.KANTHAMMA, DELETED VIDE MAJOR, ORDER DATED C/O J.JAGADEESH REDDY, 24.03.2017 H.A.L.MAIN ROAD, KUNDALAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 037 9. SMT.SUSHEELAMMA W/O LATE C.NARAYANA REDDY, SUSHEELA NARAYANA NILAYA, 13TH K.M.HULIMAVU, B.G.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 078.
10. SMT.MANJULA D/O LATE H.P.KANTHAMMA, MAJOR, NO.14, 14TH CROSS, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, YESHWANTHPURA, BENGALURU – 560 022. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.S.MAHANTESH, AGA FOR R1 AND R2 SRI RAJASHEKAR B.KANAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R4, R6 & R10 SRI R.B.SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R5 SRI VIGNESHWARA U., ADVOCATE FOR R9 NOTICE TO R7 TO R8 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 15.12.2016) ***** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE CASE IN RRT (2) (E) CR.60/2000-01 BEFORE THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-1, BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU (R-1) AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.01.2016 PASSED BY R-1 AT ANNEXURE-A IN RRT (2) (E) CR.60/2000-01.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The case of the petitioner is that by an order dated 30.05.1960, Shri.Parthasarathi Reddy, was conferred occupancy rights under the provisions of Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, in respect of land bearing Survey No.16 (later assigned as Survey No.16/1) measuring 4 acres, 7 guntas, situated in Kundalahalli Village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. Similarly, an extent of 4 acres of land in Survey No.16 was granted in favour of the father of the petitioner herein, in case No.40/1959-60.
2. Shri.Parthasarathi Reddy, sold the land granted to him by virtue of a sale deed dated 27.04.1961, to one Shri.M.Narayanappa, who in turn sold the same to one Shri.Krishna Reddy. Shri.Krishna Reddy sold the said land to one Shri.M.Nanjunda Reddy, father of the petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 04.05.1964. In the said sale-deed, Shri.Parathasarathi Reddy, and his two sons namely, Shri.H.P.Gopala Reddy and Shri.Ramesh Reddy, had signed as consenting witnesses and confirmed the sale. The sale deed was later rectified, in terms of the rectification deed dated 05.06.1972.
3. The land bearing Survey No.16/1, measuring 4 acres, 1 guntas was allotted to the share of the petitioner in a family partition, by virtue of a registered partition deed dated 29.07.1972. The property presently comes under jurisdiction of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and was converted to non-agricultural industrial purpose, vide official memorandum dated 29.10.1973, along with another land belonging to the petitioner in survey No.134/1.
4. Separate survey numbers have also been allotted to the said properties and a brick factory came into being in the property in question in the year 1982. The land was sought to be acquired by the State for the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB) by virtue of a gazette notification dated 12.02.2004. Later on, the acquisition proceedings were dropped.
5. The Special Deputy Commissioner initiated suo-moto proceedings. By the order dated 30.11.2007, the matter was referred to the Assistant Commissioner, with a directions to examine the original records relating to conferring of the occupancy rights etc, in respect of the lands in question. On remand, the Assistant Commissioner passed an order dated 12.05.2008.
6. Both these orders were challenged by the writ petitioner in Writ Petition No.7776 of 2008. By the order dated 18.03.2015, the order of the Assistant Commissioner was set-aside and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner for a fresh enquiry and various other directions were issued. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner passed the impugned order to delete the entries made in the name of the petitioner – respondent No.10 therein and that the entries to be made in the name of Shri.H.P.Gopala Reddy and since he is deceased, in the name of his Legal representatives. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed by respondent no.5 therein.
7. Shri.C.M.Gururaj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is erroneous on facts and law and is liable to be set-aside. That the Assistant Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. That the Deputy Commissioner could not have gone into the title of the parties, while passing the said order. That it is for the appropriate civil court alone that could have determined whether any of the parties have any civil rights. The order of the Deputy Commissioner therefore, requires to be set- aside.
8. Shri.R.B.Sadashivappa, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5, disputes the same. He submits that the records itself indicates no error committed by the Deputy Commissioner. He has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has rightly determined the rights of the parties.
9. Shri.Rajashekar B. Kanavi, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.3, 4, 6 and 10, disputes the same. He contends that the Deputy Commissioner has looked into all the material on record. Hence, no interference is called for. In fact, the order of the Deputy Commissioner is on the basis of the remand order passed by this court in Writ Petition No.7776 of 2008. Therefore, the order of the Deputy Commissioner cannot be found fault with.
10. On hearing learned counsels, I’am of the considered view that appropriate relief is called for. The Deputy Commissioner has considered the contentions in detail. He has gone into the source of the title of the properties in question and by relying on the material and evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the names of the petitioners should be deleted and the name of respondent no.5 should be entered. In coming to such a conclusion, the Deputy Commissioner relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SATYENDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS VS. RAJNATH DUBEY AND OTHERS, reported in (2016) AIR SCW 2231, regarding the principles of law relating to partition and division of the properties and thereafter passed the impugned order.
11. On considering the same, I’am of the considered view that the Deputy Commissioner has exceeded his jurisdiction in recording such a finding.
Primarily, the plea of the writ petitioner is based on the sale deed by which he became the owner of the property ever since the year 1964. His name has been entered in the records based on such a document. Therefore, when suo-moto proceedings were initiated, the same has resulted in the present order impugned herein. The Deputy Commissioner has gone into the dispute regarding the title to the property. In order to ascertain whether the parties have any legal right under the partition deed or any other settlement, it is not the Deputy Commissioner to so decide. It is the Civil Court to record such a finding after considering the evidence let-in by both the parties. The dispute in question should necessarily have to be considered by the Civil Court.
12. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner suffers from excessive jurisdiction. Hence, it is liable to be set-aside. However, the parties are at liberty to approach the Civil Court to agitate their rights in a manner known to law.
13. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 27.01.2016, passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner in case No.RRT(2)(E) CR.60/2000-01, is quashed.
14. The entries in the name of the petitioner shall continue, subject to the orders of the Civil Court.
SD/- JUDGE JJ