IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. N. SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.29072 OF 2019 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. HUCHAPPA S/O. GURUDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT TARAHUNASE VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-562 157.
(BY SRI. KESHAVA BHAT A., ADV.) AND 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DISTRICT, K. G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION, K. G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.
3. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-562 157.
4. SRI. D. C. BRAHMANANDA S/O. LATE D. C. CHIDAMBARACHAR, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.124, BYATARAYANAPURA, BELLARY ROAD, ... PETITIONER YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU-560 092.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 SRI. B C SRIRAMAREDDY, ADV. FOR C/R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENITRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO REVISION PETITION NO.260/2014-15 FROM THE FILE OF THE DY. COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE AND ALSO THE ENTIRE FILES FROM THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU PERTAINING TO RA (BNA) NO.32/2009-10 AND ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME; SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER MADE THEREIN BY THE R-1 DY. COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT IN REVISION PETITION NO.2602014-15 DATED 08.05.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE- A; CONSEQUENTLY, RESTORE THE ORDER OF THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE DATED 30.07.2014 IN RA(BNA) 322009-10 (VIDE ANNEXURE-B).
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This writ petition is filed impugning the order dated 08.05.2019 in Revision Petition No.260/2014- 2015 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru. In the said proceedings, the order of Assistant Commissioner dated 30.07.2014 in R.A.(BNA) No.32/2009-2010 is set aside in directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to register the khatha of land bearing Sy.No.29/1 and 29/2 in the name of respondent No.4 Sri. D. C. Brahmananda, as it was considered in RRT (Dis) No.12/2005-06 on the file of the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North (Addl.) Taluk, Yelahanka Sub-Division, Bengaluru.
2. The entire dispute between the parties is covered under two registered sale deeds. The first of the sale deed is dated 23.02.1943 (registered on 24.02.1943) in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Devanahalli vide document No.1202 registered in Book - I, Volume - 452, pages 23 to 25 wherein one Puttabasappa, S/o. Narayanappa has sold 1 acre 31 guntas in Sy.No.29/1 of Tarahunase, Jala Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk to one Sri. Tammanna, S/o. Channapurada Channappa. This document is not disputed by anybody.
3. However, it is seen that on 25.08.1966, the children of Tammanna by name Kempaiah, Doddapatalappa and Chikkapatalappa have executed a sale deed in favour of one Puttabasappachari who is said to be the grandfather of respondent No.4 herein, namely Brahmananda with respect to two items of land namely Sy.Nos.29/1 and 29/2 of Tarahunase Village, Jala Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk. In the said sale deed at para-3 they clearly and categorically state that the land which is conveyed by them under the said sale deed was purchased by their father under registered sale deed dated 23.02.1943 registered in the office of Devanahalli Sub-Registrar in Book – I, Volume-452 at pages 23 to 25 bearing document No.1202. In the sale deed executed by them they would state that they are conveying two items of land namely Sy.No.29/1 and 29/2 together measuring 3 acres 19 guntas.
4. When these two sale deeds are seen, it is clearly seen that, fraud is committed on the part of vendors under sale deed dated 25.08.1966 in contending that they have secured title to 3 acres 19 guntas of land in Sy.No.29/1 and 29/2 of Tarahunase Village, Jala Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, whereas the earlier sale deed, reference of which is furnished by them, would clearly indicate that their ancestors have purchased only 1 acre 31 guntas in Sy.No.29/1. In fact this simple factual position is not seen by the Tahsildar while passing orders in RRT (Dis) 12/2005-06 and he would pass erroneous order in directing mutation of the entire extent of 3 acres 19 guntas in both Sy.Nos.29/1 and 29/2 to be registered in the name of respondent No.4, even though there is no title to his vendor under registered sale deed dated 25.08.1966.
5. However, when the said order was taken up before the Assistant Commissioner of Bengaluru North Sub-Division in R.A.(BNA) 32/2009-2010 filed by the petitioner herein, he would go through the entire material available on record; that after noticing the title insofar as land bearing Sy.No.29/2 not having flown in favour of Sri. Tammanna under earlier sale deed, his children could not have sold the said land in favour of the 4th respondent’s grandfather; consequently 4th respondent’s grandfather would not get any title to the said property based on which he could seek revenue entries in his favour to the said land. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner by order dated 30.07.2014 would set aside the order of Tahsildar dated 15.3.2006 in No.RRT(Dis). 12/2005-06.
6. The said order is wrongly interpreted by respondent No.1, Deputy Commissioner herein in RP.No.260/2014-15, consequently he has passed erroneous order on 8.5.2019 which would not stand to reason either on facts or on the legal position, therefore the said order requires to be quashed. While doing so, the authorities are hereby directed to consider restoration of mutation entry in favour of the petitioner Huchappa insofar as land bearing Sy.No.29/2 of Tarahunase Village, Jala Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk is concerned.
7. However, when it comes to land Sy.No.29/1 measuring 1 acre 31 guntas, respondent No.4 herein has every right to get the said land mutated in his name, since the title of said land is flown to him in the aforesaid manner.
8. However, in the event respondent No.4 herein is able to establish that he has secured the title to the land bearing Sy.No.29/2 through any other sale deed, it is open to the authorities to consider registering his name to the said land, provided there is proper conveyance of title to the said extent in his favour.
9. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- Judge RD