IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.3422 OF 2016 (KLR) BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M. S. BUILDING DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU - 1 BENGALURU CITY.
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DISTRICT BENGALURU - 1 BENGALURU CITY.
3. THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU URBAN-560 009. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.LAXMINARAYANA, AGA.) AND:
1. M. MUNIYAPPA SON OF LATE MUNISWAMAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.RS, 1(a) SMT. NIRMALA WIFE OF LATE SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 1(b) SRI. UMAPATHY, SON OF LATE SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.7/2 22ND CROSS, 15TH MAIN 3RD SECTOR, H.S.R. LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 102.
1(c) NAGARAJ M.
SON OF LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 1(d) TYAGARAJ M.
SON OF LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 1(e) KRISHNAMURTHY M.
SON OF LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 1(f) VENKATESH M.
SON OF LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 1(g) MUNIGOWDA M.
SON OF LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 1(h) RAVICHANDRA M.
SON OF LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.6/1 LAKSHMIVENKATESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD MANGAMMANAPALYA BOMMANAHALLI (POST) BENGALURU-68.
2. M RAMANNA SON OF LATE MUNISWAMAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 2(a) M.R. SIDDALINGEGOUDA SON OF LATE M RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 2(b) M.R. JAGADISH, SON OF LATE M. RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 2(c) M.R. MUNISWAMEGOUDA SON OF LATE M. RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 2(d) M.R. RAGHAVENDRA SON OF LATE M. RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 3. M. KRISHNAPPA SON OF LATE MUNISWAMAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.RS 3(a) K. SURESH, SON OF LATE M. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 3(b) M.K. RAMESH SON OF LATE M. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 3(c) K. SOMESHA, SON OF LATE M. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.6/1 LAKSHMIVENKATESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD MANGAMMANAPALYA BOMMANAHALLI (POST) BENGALURU-68.
4. M VENKATASWAMY SON OF LATE MUNISWAMAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.RS.
4(a) M.V. RAJENDRA, SON OF LATE M VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 4(b) M.V. NAGENDRA, SON OF LATE M. VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 4(c) M.V. SRINIVASA SON OF LATE M. VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT MANGAMMANAPALYA YELLAKINTE DAKHLE BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU CITY-560 068.
(BY SRI. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ANIRUDH ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT No.1(a-h) ... RESPONDENTS SRI CHANDRASHEKAR PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT No.3(c) AND 4(a-c) RESPONDENT No.2(a-d) and 3(a) and 3(b) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.33633/2009 DATED 30/08/2014.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30.08.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.33633 of 2009, in allowing the writ petition and quashing the impugned order therein, the State has filed this appeal.
2. The case of the respondents is that they have purchased the lands in question in terms of the registered sale deeds of the year 1943. That the revenue records were also mutated in their names. However, after a lapse of 26 years, the Deputy Commissioner has initiated suo moto proceedings and consequently held that the sale deeds are null and void and set aside the entries made in favour of the respondents. Questioning the same, the instant writ petitions were filed. By the impugned order dated 30.08.2014 the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on the ground that the suo moto power also has to be exercised within a reasonable time and the same having been exercised in this case after 26 years, is bad in law. That the Deputy Commissioner had no legal competency to decide on the title of the property. Learned Government Advocate submits that it took time to realize the error that has occasioned. Immediately on coming to know of the report of the Tahsildar, interference was called for and thereafter notices were issued. The same is disputed by the other side on the ground that they are holders of the registered sale deeds. Therefore, the State cannot claim those lands.
3. Under these circumstances, we are of the view, that appropriate interference is called for. We have considered the registered sale deeds, which are produced herein as Annexures B and B1. We are unable to trace out the ownership of the property, even though the vendor has sold the property to the respondents indicating that the vendor has received the property. However, we do not intend to comment any further as to the title of the respondents is concerned. They are always at liberty to approach the appropriate Civil Court and prove the sale deeds in respect of the lands claimed by them.
4. Insofar as the delay in initiating the proceedings, we find that the same cannot be held against the State. The report of the Tahsildar was called for. Prima facie, the sale deeds were not accepted by the State. Therefore, merely on the ground of delay, the impugned orders therein could not have been quashed. However, the finding recorded by the Deputy Commissioner with regard to title of the respondents is liable to be set aside. The Deputy Commissioner has no authority to comment on the title to the property. It is only the Civil Court that has to decide the title to the property.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 30.08.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.33633 of 2009 is set aside. The writ petition is dismissed. The finding of the Deputy Commissioner with regard to the title of the respondents is set aside. The respondents are at liberty to protect their possession in a manner known to law by approaching the appropriate Civil Court. Accordingly the appeal is disposed off.
I.A.No.2 of 2016 for stay does not survive for consideration, hence, the application is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE NG* CT:bms