IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA W.P.NO.23214/2012 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN:
SRI. B.K. RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 81 YERAS S/O LATE CHIKKADARAGAIAH R/A BYADARAHALLI VILLAGE YESHAVANTHAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. G. UDHAYA KUMAR, ADV.) AND:
1. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS BENGALURU DIVISION BENGALURU.
2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS BENGALURU DIVISION BENGALURU.
3. PUTTAMARAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS S/O LATE APPANNAPPA 4. JAYARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS S/O LATE APPANNAPPA 5. SMT.LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS W/O LATE B NARAYANAPPA 6. B N CHIKKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O LATE B NARAYANAPPA 7. B N MAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O LATE B NARAYANAPPA 8. S N LAKSHMINARAYANA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS S/O LATE B NARAYANAPPA 9. PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O LATE SIDDAGANGAIAH RESPONDENTS 3 TO 9 ARE R/A BYADARAHALLI, YESHAVANTHAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.T.S.MAHANTESH, AGA. FOR R1 & R2 SRI. B NANDAGOPAL, ADV. FOR R3 TO R9) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.08.2011 MADE IN APPEAL NO.584/05 PASSED BY THE KAT, ANNX-A AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE R1 IN APPEAL NO.52/02-03 PASSED ON 22.03.2005.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner herein is one of the sons of late Chikkakaragaiah who is the purchaser of an extent of 15 guntas of land in Survey No.126/2 of Herohalli Village, Yeshvanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, under registered sale deed dated 12.08.1957 from Shanbhog Puttashamaiah. Thereafter the land which was purchased by him was mutated in his name vide MR.No.9/87-88. After the death of Chikkakaragaiah inheritance katha was effected as per MR.No.8/89-90 in the name of the petitioner and his brother. The second son of Chikkakaragaiah is before this Court impugning the judgment dated 9.8.2011 passed in Appeal No.584/2005 which was filed by respondents 3 to 9 challenging the order of the first respondent-Joint Director of Land Records, Bengaluru Division, in proceedings No.JDLR/Appeal/52/03-04 dated 22.3.2005.
2. The brief facts leading to this writ petition are as under:-
The petitioner herein who is the second son of the original owner Chikkakaragaiah approached the first respondent in the year 2003 by filing an appeal on the basis of the endorsement dated 10.3.2003 issued to him by the Office of the Assistant Director of Land Records, Bengaluru Sub-Division, Bengaluru, vide No.ADLR-PR- 881/2002-03 stating that holding of the petitioner in land bearing Survey No.126/2 of Herohalli Village is already registered in revenue records as 13 guntas as against 15 guntas purchased by his father on the basis of the phodi dhurasthi work, which is already conducted and as such he has to approach the competent authority for rectification.
3. It is on the basis of this endorsement the first respondent filed an appeal and sought to correct the order passed in phodi dhurasthi work conducted in the year 1958. In the said appeal, it was contended that though the petitioner’s father had purchased 15 guntas of land under the registered sale deed dated 12.8.1957, while conducting the phodi of the very same land in the year 1958, no notice was given to the father of the petitioner and that said phodi was conducted at the instance of other persons having title to some portion of the land in the very same survey number and accordingly Sy.No.126/2 was sub divided into 126/2A to 126/2E, which was not within the knowledge of the petitioner and that he came to know about it only when endorsement dated 10.3.2003 was given to him by the Office of the Assistant Director of Land Records.
4. The said first appeal on the file of the Joint Director of Land Records was taken up for consideration and the same was allowed setting aside the phodi and dhurasthi work conducted in respect of Survey No.126/2 and dividing the said land into Survey No.126/2A to 2E and further a direction was also given to redo the same after issuing notice to all the persons concerned in the said land.
5. The said order of the Joint Director of Land Records dated 22.3.2005 in No.JDLR/Appeal/52/03-04 was the subject-matter of appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.584/2005 filed by respondents 3 to 9, wherein they contended firstly that the first appeal filed against the endorsement dated 10.3.2003 is not tenable and secondly that the submission of the petitioners that they were not aware of the phodi and dhurasthi work until they received the aforesaid endorsement is incorrect and that in the year 1993 itself acquisition proceedings was initiated and some portion of the land in Survey No.126/2 was acquired and compensation was awarded to the original land owner where the petitioner’s father appeared before the authorities and he was having knowledge of the phodi and dhurasthi work conducted and demarcation of subdivisions in his lands, which was accepted by him and the same was never challenged by him during his life time.
6. Therefore, on the basis of the endorsement issued in the year 2003, the appeal could not have been filed by the petitioner herein that to after lapse of 40 years from the date of phodi and dhurasthi work in the year 1958 and the same requires to be set aside. Accordingly, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal after considering the aforesaid submissions with reference to the documents produced in support thereof set aside the order passed by the first respondent in No.JDLR/Appeal/52/03-04 dated 22.3.2005, which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the order impugned.
8. On going through the same, it is clearly seen that the statement of the petitioner before the Joint Director of Land Records to the effect that he was not aware of the phodi work done in the year 1958 is incorrect inasmuch as the material on record would indicate that petitioner’s father while he was alive had appeared before the competent Authority where a portion of his property bearing Survey No.126/2E was acquired and compensation was disbursed to him. Assuming for a moment that the petitioner’s father was aggrieved of the same, nothing prevented him to take up the matter with the Joint Director of Land Records in the year 1958 contending firstly that he was not aware of the phodi and dhurasthi work done and sub-division of the property into 2A to 2E and non-consideration of the sale deed executed in his favour. Probably, the same could have been accepted.
9. However, in the fact situation the same having not been disputed by the father of the petitioner when he was alive, it is not open for the petitioner to contest the same on the basis of the endorsement, which is issued in the year 2003. Therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dated 9.8.2011 appears to be just and proper both on facts and law.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
*alb/-.
Sd/- JUDGE