IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA W.P.NOs.10584/2018 AND 11803/2018(KLR-RES) BETWEEN 1. SRI.V.RAMA REDDY, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs., 1(a) SMT. JAYAMMA, W/O LATE V RAMA REDDY @ RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, 1(b) SRI. NAGARAJA REDDY, S/O LATE V RAMA REDDY @ RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 1(c) SRI.VENKATESHA REDDY, S/O LATE V RAMA REDDY @ RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 1(d) SRI.LAKSHMAN REDDY, S/O LATE V RAMA REDDY @ RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 2. SRI.V.VENKATASWAMY REDDY, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS., S/O OORABAGILU V VENKATARAMANA REDDY, 2(a) SMT. NEELAMMMA, W/O LATE V.VENKATASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 2(b) SRI.V.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, S/O LATE V.VENKATASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 2(c) SRI.BABU REDDY @ V.SUDHAKAR, S/O LATE V.VENKATASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NOSENOOR VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK – 562 104, BANGALORE DISTRICT.
…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. Y.R.SADASIVA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. G.A. VISHWANATH REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE SOUTH SUB – DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVANA, K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE.
3. THE TAHSILDAR, ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL.
4. SMT. ANKAMMA, W/O LATE SANJEEVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 5. SRI.SRINIVAS REDDY, S/O LATE SANJEEVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 6. SRI.NAGARAJA REDDY (NAGESH REDDY), S/O LATE SANJEEVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 7. SRI. MANJUNATH REDDY, S/O LATE SANJEEVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, THE RESPONDENTS 4 TO 7 ARE R/AT NOSENOOR VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK – 562 104, BANGALORE DISTRICT.
(BY SRI.T.S. MAHANTESH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
…RESPONDENTS SRI.V.LAKSHMINARAYANA, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI.H.C.NATARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R7) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.02.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE IN R.P.NO.217/2016-17 VIDE ANNEXURE – A AND ETC., THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioners herein are impugning the order of the first respondent Deputy Commissioner dated 06.02.2018 in R.P.NO.217/2016-17, wherein the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division in R.A.(A). No.790/2014-15 which is in challenge to the order of the Tahsildar of Anekal Taluk in M.R.No.H 9/2012-13, is confirmed. The M.R.No.H9/2012-13 by Tahsildar of Anekal Taluk is based on a partition which has taken place in the family of the petitioners with reference to 16 guntas of land purchased by the said family from the original owner of land bearing Sy.No.102/3 of Nosenoor Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid survey number originally belong to family of one Nanjappa and the extent of land held by them in Sy.No.102/3 of Nosenoor village is 32 guntas. It is stated that said Nanjappa on 26.03.1939 sold 7 guntas in the aforesaid Survey number in favour of Patel Narasimha Reddy; thereafter he sold 8 guntas in favour of V.Ramaiah under the registered sale deed dated 06.06.1956. Thereafter, it is stated that one of the two sons of Nanjappa, namely, Channappa sold an extent of 8 guntas in the said survey number to one N.M.Venkataramana Reddy under the registered sale deed dated 14.06.1962 who in turn sold the very same extent to V.Ramaiah @ V.Rama Reddy under registered sale deed dated 18.07.1962. With this, it is stated that the total land held by the family of V.Ramaiah is 16 guntas in the said survey number.
3. Thereafter, it is stated that another son of Nanjappa viz., Ramaiah sold another extent of land in the said survey number measuring 12X15 feet in favour of N.M.Venkataramana Reddy on 10.10.1963 and subsequently, Nanjappa himself gifted an extent of 7 guntas in favour of his daughters under gift deed dated 30.03.1964. With this, according to the petitioner, the entire extent of 32 guntas held by the family of Nanjappa was conveyed under different documents as stated supra and no land was available to that family in aforesaid Sy.No.102/3.
4. Inspite of that, it is stated that the second son of Nanjappa, namely, Ramaiah sold 8 guntas of land in the said survey number to one Sanjeeva Reddy under registered sale deed dated 17.03.1976 which according to the petitioner is in respect of non-existing land for which, khatha is considered on the basis of sale deed by disturbing M.R.No.H9/2012-13 entered in his name. According to the petitioner, M.R.No.H9/2012-13 is on the basis of partition in the family of V.Ramaiah where 8 guntas of land was considered for the said mutation entry, which is sought to be disturbed without there being any basis.
5. It is seen that the said order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 15.07.2016 is a cryptic order seen in the order-sheet maintained in the said proceedings without there being a separate order in that behalf. There is no discussion regarding the total extent of land held by Nanjappa’s family. There is no reference of earlier transactions and there is no reference to the basis on which mutation entry is ordered except stating that the entry should be considered on the basis of the sale deed in favour of Sanjeev Reddy. The said order was sought to be challenged before the Deputy Commissioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the aforesaid infirmity in the order of the Assistant Commissioner was brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner in R.P.No.217/2016-17, he has confirmed the same without verifying the correctness or otherwise of the transactions leading to passing the impugned order by the Assistant Commissioner. It is in this background, the present writ petitions are filed.
6. After hearing the learned Senior counsels appearing for both the parties, this Court felt that keeping aside the merits of the case, if the order impugned of the Assistant Commissioner is seen, it is nothing but a cryptic order passed without application of mind. There is no reference to the basis on which, the said order is passed, which runs to only three lines and reads thus; “the mutation entries are effected in favour of R.Sanjeeva Reddy according to the sale deeds executed in his favour”. The said order is passed without assigning any reasons.
7. Hence, the said order is hereby quashed.
Consequently, the order of the Deputy Commissioner is also quashed. Thereafter, respondent Nos.3 to 7 namely, the legal heirs of deceased R.Sanjeeva Reddy who are claiming mutation entries in respect of 8 guntas of land purchased by them under sale deed dated 17.03.1976 shall appear before the Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk, who shall look into the entire records pertaining to Sy.No.102/3A of Nosenoor Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk and after looking into all the transactions, if there is any extent of land available in the name of Nanjappa as on the date of execution of the sale deed in the name of Sanjeev Reddy, the Tahsildar shall consider the same in favour of the purchaser, i.e., R.Sanjeeva Reddy and his legal heirs who are respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein.
8. With such observations, these writ petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE TL/DH