IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO.44983/2014 & W.P.NOS.45097 – 45098/2014 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. PAPAMMA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS W/O. JOSEPH R/AT NO.211 KALAPPA COMPOUND APPU RAO ROAD 6TH MAIN ROAD CHAMARAJPET BANGALORE-560 018.
2. SMT. MARIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS W/O. LATE THERESAPPA @ Y. RAJU R/AT NO.144, 5TH CROSS B.D.A. LAYOUT KONENA AGRAHARA BANGALORE-560 017.
3. SMT. THERESA SINCE DEAD BY HER L.RS A) SRI A. ROBERT AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O. R. ANTHONY B) SRI A. LAWRENCE AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O. R. ANTHONY C) SMT. JOSHEPIN AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS D/O. R. ANTHONY ALL ARE R/AT NO.219/6 9TH CROSS, THIMANNA GARDEN R.T. NAGAR POST BANGALORE-560 032. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI K. NARASIMHA MURTHY, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT K.G. ROAD BANGALORE-560 009.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION KHANDAYA BHAVAN K.G. ROAD BANGALORE-560 009.
4. SMT. MARIYAMMA SINCE DEAD NO L.RS LEFT BEHIND 5. SMT. PAPAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER L.RS A) SMT. RAJAMMA W/O. CHINAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS NO:64, 1ST CROSS BEHIND PRIMARY GIRLS SCHOOL JAYANTHINAGARA HORAMAVU POST BANGALORE-560 043.
B) SMT. CHINNAMMA W/O. CHOWRAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS NO.63, 1ST CROSS BEHIND PRIMARY GIRLS SCHOOL JAYANTHINAGARA HORAMAVU POST BANGALORE-560 043.
C) SRI AROGYASWAMY S/O. ANTHONY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS NO.B, 21/4, 1ST PHASE DRDO TOWNSHIP C.V. RAMAN NAGAR BANGALORE-560 093.
6. SRI NAGAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS L.RS A) SMT. LAKKAMMA W/O. LATE NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT UTTARI VILLAGE KAGGALIPURA POST UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK-560 082.
7. VENKATAPPA DEAD BY LRS.
A) SMT.NARASAMMA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, W/O LATE VENKATAPPA, R/A UTTARI VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.S.MAHANTESH, AGA FOR R.1 TO 3 SRI SANGAMESH R.B., ADV. FOR R.5 (A TO C SRI J.C.KUMAR, ADV. FOR R.6(A) SRI K.G.SADASHIVAIAH, ADV. FOR 7(A)) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN CASE NO.REVN.PETN.NO.197/2009-10 FROM THE FILE OF RESPONDENT NO.2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT AT BENGALURU.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners are claiming to be legal heirs of Lurdamma, Daughter of Annigaiah. It is submitted by the petitioners that the property bearing Sy.No.34/2B measuring 1 acre 11 guntas situate in Uttari village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk was originally owned by late Annigaiah, S/o Chowrigaiah. The said late Annigaiah had three daughters viz., a) Late Arogyamma, b) Late Kittiramma and c) Late Lurdamma @ Mariyamma. Respondents No.4 and 5 have filed the Revision Petition in Revn.Petn.No.197/2009-10 in respect of land bearing Sy.No.38/4 and 38/5 of Uttari village, Bengaluru South Taluk challenging the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, South sub- division, Bengaluru in RRT/CR/(S)906/2007-08 dated 02.07.2008. The petitioners contend that they were not arrayed as parties either before the Assistant Commissioner or before the Deputy Commissioner. The order of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (‘the Act’ for short) setting aside the order of Assistant Commissioner relating to Sy.No.34/2B though was not the subject matter of challenge in Revision Petition No.197/2009- 10, is ex-facie illegal and requires to be set aside.
3. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.4 and 5/petitioners in Revision Petition No.197/2009-10 would fairly submit that the challenge was made only in respect of Sy.No.38/4 and 38/5 of Uttari village Bengaluru South Taluk in the revision proceedings. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6A and 7A submitted that they have purchased certain extent of land in Sy.No.34/2B and they are in possession of the property.
4. Having heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is evident that the revision petition filed under Section 136(3) of the Act depicts that the petitioners therein have confined the appeal in respect of Sy.Nos.38/4, 38/5 which belongs to Sri Cheluvaiah S/o Chowriga. It is for better clarity, para 3 and 4 of the revision petition filed before the Special Deputy Commissioner in Revn.Petn. No.197/2009-10 is quoted hereunder:
“3. The appellant submits that the property bearing Sy.No.34/2B measuring totally 1 acre 27 guntas originally belongs to Sri Annigaiah, S/o Chowrigaiah and Sy.No.38/4 measuring 1 acre 12 guntas and Sy.No.38/5 measuring 1 acre 15 guntas of Uttari village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South originally belongs to Sri Cheluvaiah, S/o Chowriga. The said fact is evident from the Survey Tippani Uttar and as per IL and RR records.
4. The petitioners submit that now the petitioners confined this appeal in respect of Sy.No.38/4 and 38/5 which belongs to Cheluvaiah S/o Chowriga.”
Similarly the relief sought in the revision petition reads thus:
“1) CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT in RRT/CR/(S) 906/2007-08 dated 02.07.2008 in respect of lands bearing Sy.No.38/4 and 38/5 of Uttari village, Bengaluru South .
2) To SET ASIDE THE impugned orders passed by 1st respondent.
3) TO DIRECT the authority below to enter the names of petitioners being the LRs of late Cheluviah S/o Chowriga in RTC and mutation pertaining to land in Sy.No.38/4 and 38/5 of Uttari village, Bengaluru South;
4) To pass such other orders in the ends of justice and equity.”
The aforesaid makes it clear that property No.34/2B was not the subject matter of revision before the Deputy Commissioner. In such circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner was not competent to set aside the order impugned therein, i.e., the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 02.07.2008 in its entirety including the lands bearing Sy.No.34/2B. In other words, the Deputy Commissioner ought to have restricted the revision petition only inasmuch as the reliefs claimed by the petitioners therein, in respect of the properties in Sy.Nos.38/4 and 38/5. Hence, the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner impugned herein dated 17.07.2014 cannot be sustained, as far as the lands bearing Sy.No.34/2B is concerned. If there is any inter-se dispute between the petitioners and respondents No.6A and 7A, the same has to be adjudicated before the appropriate forum and not in this writ petition. It is made clear that no rights of the petitioners relating to the lands in Sy.No.34/2B has been decided in these proceedings.
5. Hence, the writ petition stands disposed of quashing the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No.197/2009-10 as far as the lands in Sy.No.34/2B Uttari Village, Bengaluru South is concerned, the order of the Assistant Commissioner in No.RRT.CR(S)906/2007-08 dated 02.07.2008 relating to Sy.No.34/2B remains undisturbed. The adjudication relating to Sy.No.38/4 and 38/5, the subject matter of revision before the Special Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No.197/2009-10 challenged and pending before this Court is kept open.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, these writ petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE akc