IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.6932/2019 (KLR-RES) Between:
Annayappa, Aged about 73 years, S/o. Nagaiah @ Nanjaiah, R/at Srikantapura, Dasanapur Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk-562 157. ... Petitioner (By Sri. Shivaraju.M.K, Adv.,) And:
1. State of Karnataka, Revenue Department, M.S.Buildings, Bengaluru-560 001, By Principal Secretary.
2. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, Kandaya Bhavan, K.G.Road, Bengaluru-560 009.
3. The Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division, K.G.Road, Bengaluru-560 009.
4. The Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru-560 009.
5. Sri.Ramesh Gowda, Aged about 49 years, S/o. Late Hanumantharaya, R/at Kuduregere Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District-562 157. ... Respondents (By Sri. Venkatesh Dodderi, AGA for R1 to R4; Sri. E.Venkatarami Reddy, Adv., for C/R5) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash impugned order dated 21.12.2018 passed by the R-2 in R.P.No.156/2018 in respect of the old bearing Sy.No.18 New Sy.No.18/5 measuring 4 acres of Kuduregere Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District, vide Annexure-R and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for ‘Orders’ this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER This matter was moved by learned counsel for the petitioner, though he had not removed office objections. However, it is taken up for final hearing, subject to the learned counsel complying office objections and paying the cost of Rs.500/- to Registry.
2. Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for R-1 to R-4.
3. Petitioner is son of one Nagaiah @ Nanjaiah. It is stated that the said Nagaiah @ Nanjaiah was the cultivator of land bearing Survey No.18 of Kuduregere village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, to an extent of six acres under Grow More Food Scheme. Admittedly, the said Scheme was in force from the year 1943 onwards. An option was given to persons in possession of lands to purchase the same in their favour. In this background, option was exercised by the father of petitioner-Nagaiah @ Nanjaiah. The land was regularized in his favour by collecting offset price. It is seen that even before the grant was regularized in his favour, it is said that the father of petitioner had sold the property to an extent of four acres to Sri Hanumantharaya, father of respondent No.5 herein, under registered sale deed on 11.11.1964. It is on the basis of the said registered sale deed, the name of father of respondent No.5 was registered as Khatedar of the aforesaid land in the revenue records.
4. The same was subject matter of challenge by the petitioner subsequent to the sale in favour of father of respondent No.5 to get impleaded and to challenge the revenue entries in his name on the ground that the same was granted in violation of grant conditions. His grievance is that after the order was passed in favour of 5th respondent and the same was challenged before respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner in R.P. No.156/2018 which came to be dismissed by order dated 21.12.2018. The said order is said to be challenged in this writ petition .
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order and the materials available on record, which clearly indicate that even as on the date when objections were raised before respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner by the petitioner herein, he had no subsisting right in the land as it was already sold. Nobody have raised objection for transfer of Katha before Tahsildar stating that there was violation in the transaction done by the father of petitioner-Nagaiah @ Nanjaiah, in favour of father of respondent No.5-Hanumantharaya, which has admittedly taken place in the year 1964. For nearly 45 years, nothing has been done.
6. It is at this stage, there is an attempt on the part of the petitioner to show that the transaction that taken in the year 1964 was in contravention of grant rules, which cannot be entertained by respondent No.4-Tahsildar or by respondent Nos.2 and 3 Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner respectively. In any event, it is not for the petitioner to challenge the same, when admittedly his father Nagaiah @ Nanjaiah, during his life time, has never challenged the same. In view of this, this writ petition is nothing but an attempt on the part of petitioner for extortion from respondent No.5, which cannot be entertained. Therefore, it is dismissed.
7. Though this Court is of the considered opinion that heavy cost is to be imposed on the petitioner in this matter, at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has restrained itself from passing such an order on cost.
8. The learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within two weeks.
Sd/- JUDGE Cs CT:RG