IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.5234 OF 2012(KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN SRI N M THEERTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O N.K. MATADAIAH, R/AT NO-09, I CROSS, ULSOOR, JOGUPALYA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE ... PETITIONER (By Sri. S G PARTHASARATHY, ADV.) AND 1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERS BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION PODIUM BLOCK, VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWER, BANGALORE 3. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE 4. SRI. KANITE VENKATESHWARA S/O KOTESHWARA RAO, MAJOR, R/AT NO.320, 9TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri. T.S.MAHANTESH, ADV. FOR R1-R3, Sri. P.B.RAJU, ADV. FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY R2 DATED 4.2.05 WHICH IS ENCLOSED AS ANNX-J CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPEAL.
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 seeking writ of certiorari impugning the order dated 4.2.2005 passed by respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division in proceedings No.RA202/2004-05 vide Annexure ‘J’ and order dated 28.3.2011 passed by the respondent No.1-Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District in proceedings No.RP28/2005-06 vide Annexure ‘H’ and also for a direction to respondent No.3, the Additional Tahsildar of Bengaluru North Taluk to enter the name of petitioner in the RTC in the column meant to enter the name of persons in possession of the revenue land.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has entered into an agreement with two persons by name Munikrishnappa and Y.M.Ashok kumar for purchase of 7 acres of land in Sy.No.146 of Kudregere village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk where the Ain land is said to be 3 acres and 14 guntas and kharab land appended to that is 3 acres 26 guntas, together in all 7 acres, situate in the said Sy.No.146 of Kudregere village.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the vendors under the said agreement dated 4.11.1996 have subsequently sold the aforesaid land in favour of respondent No.4 in these proceedings, without the knowledge of petitioner. Hence, it is stated that a suit is initiated by him for the relief of specific performance in O.S.No.610/2015 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Devanahalli. In the meanwhile it is contended that the respondent No.4 herein having secured the sale deed of land bearing Sy.No.146 and another property bearing Sy.No.145 has got the said lands registered in his name in the revenue records, which is sought to be challenged in this writ petition after having failed before the Assistant Commissioner in R.A.202/2004-2005 and before the Special Deputy Commissioner in R.P.28/2005-2006.
4. The only grievance of the petitioner herein is that in the event of petitioner succeeding in the suit filed by him for the relief of specific performance it would be difficult for him to take possession of the land after the same is encumbered in the name of different persons. Therefore, to keep the public aware of the litigation which is pending, the same shall be entered in column Nos.9 and 11 of the RTC.
5. The petitioner is not in a position to state under what provision of law he can seek such a prayer. Therefore, in the fact situation, this Court is of the considered view that such entries cannot be considered in the writ jurisdiction. However, it is made clear that if there are any transactions with reference to the land in question during the pendency of the litigation between the petitioner and its erstwhile owner, he is at liberty to seek appropriate relief before the competent Court at the appropriate time. However, anticipating such situation, question of issuing direction to the authorities to enter the name of petitioner either in column No.9 or 11 of the RTC does not arise.
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE bkp