IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.1882/2019(KLR-RES) BETWEEN SMT. S B RAJINI W/O SRI V SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.15/A, 4TH MAIN 10TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE, R K LAYOUT, PADMANABHANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 070 REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY SRI V SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE SRI VEERABHADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.15/A, 4TH MAIN 10TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE R K LAYOUT, PADMANABHANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 070 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI R B SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVAN, K G ROAD BENGALURU-560001 3. THE THASILDAR BENGALURU NORTH ADDITIONAL TALUK MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA YELAHANKA BENGALURU-560064 4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR JALA CIRCLE, JALA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH ADDITIONAL TALUK BENGALURU-562157 5. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT JALA CIRCLE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH ADDITIONAL TALUK BENGALURU-562157 6. SRI MAHESH GURUJAPALLI S/O SRI G.B.S. CHARY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.40 & 41, YASHASHRI KRUPA 6TH CROSS, BHUVANESHWARANAGARA DASARAHALLI, NH-7, HEBBAL, BENGALURU-560 024 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.S.MAHANTESH, AGA FOR R1 TO R5 SRI NATARAJU B.HALEMANE, ADVOCATE FOR R6)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.06.2018 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN IN RP NO.277/2010-11 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner herein is impugning the order dated 26.6.2018 passed by the 1st respondent – Deputy Commissioner in RP.No.277/2010-11, vide Annexure-F.
2. Brief facts leading to this writ petition are as under:
Petitioner herein is daughter of Smt.S.Nagarathnamma w/o late S.B.Basappa. It is stated that said Nagarathnamma during her lifetime had purchased an extent of 25 acres of land in Sy.Nos.31 and 32 of Gadenahalli village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. The grievance of the petitioner is that subsequently by creating fraudulent documents several sale deeds are executed by third parties as if the said sale deeds are executed by Arasegowda in respect of the land which is already sold by him to petitioner’s mother. Hence, the mother of petitioner having come to know about the said transactions has filed a suit for declaration in OS.No.1134/2006 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Bengaluru Rural District, where the vendor – Arasegowda is impleaded as 1st defendant and various other persons, who have secured title through some other person, who has sold the property in their favour as the original owner – Arasegowda as defendants 2 to 26 in the said proceedings. It is also stated that subsequent to filing of the said suit, some more persons are impleaded as defendants and presently there appears to be 42 defendants in the said suit.
3. In the meanwhile, one of the defendants in OS.No.1134/2006 has approached the 1st respondent herein in RP.No.277/2010-11 challenging the order dated 14.5.2010 passed in RA.No.277/2008-09 on the file of Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub Division in registering the land which is already purchased by petitioner’s mother - Nagrathnamma in her name. It is stated that during the pendency of RP.No.277/2010-11 before the 1st respondent, the petitioner herein had filed an application on 13.4.2017 seeking stay of all further proceedings in RP.277/2010-11 on the premise that the dispute between Revision petitioner and other respondents before the 1st respondent with reference to title to the property is subject matter in OS.No.1134/2006 which was initially filed by petitioner’s mother – Nagarathnamma and after her death being pursued by the petitioner herein as legal heir. It is further stated that said application is rejected on the ground that there is no stay in the original suit, therefore question of staying the proceedings in RP.No.277/2010-11 does not arise, which order dated 26.6.2018 is subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, contesting respondent, who is revision petitioner before the 1st respondent in RP.No.277/2010-11 as well as learned Additional Government Advocate. Perused the material available on record. On going through the same, it is clearly seen that the original owner Smt.Nagarathnamma, mother of the petitioner, who is said to have purchased 25 acres of land in Sy.Nos.31 and 32 of Gadenahalli village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, has approached the Civil Court challenging various sale deeds with reference to the property belonging to her which are executed by creating fake and forged documents and also revenue entries effected pursuant thereto. When the matter stood thus, the petition filed before 1st respondent in RP.No.277/2010-11 cannot be allowed to continue inasmuch as any decision that is rendered therein would be neither final nor conclusive, in fact, the same would only deal with revenue entries but not with reference to title of the property. Further, when revenue entries are said to be pursuant to fake and forged documents, any proceedings to be precipitated with reference to said entries until the dispute to title is finalized cannot be entertained.
5. In that view of the matter, the present writ petition is allowed. The order dated 26.6.2018 passed in RP.No.277/2010-11 on the file of Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, is hereby quashed. While doing so, it is made clear that said proceedings shall be stayed until the original suit in OS.No.1134/2006 pending on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Bengaluru Rural District, reaches its logical end in declaring title to the property in question and till then any proceedings with reference to revenue entries in respect of said land cannot be entertained by any authority, much less the 1st respondent – Deputy Commissioner. Liberty is also reserved to both petitioner as well as respondents to approach the Civil Court seeking indulgence of the said Court to dispose of the original suit pending before it at the earliest, at its convenience.
Sd/- JUDGE nd/-