IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA W.P.No.41518/2017 (KLR – RES) BETWEEN :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY PRL. SECRETARY TO Government., DEPT. OF REVENUE, M.S BUILDING, BENGALURU-01 2. THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI N.DINESH RAO, AAG A/W SRI Y.D.HARSHA, AGA.) AND :
1. THE SPEICAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE DISTRICT-560009.
2. SHRI RAVIKUMAR S/O LATE SATHYANARAYANA SHARMA, NO.117, 1ST CROSS, GARUDACHAR PALYA, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK-560048.
3. SHRI NANJUNDAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs.
3(a) SRI APPANNA, S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, No.29, BYRASANDRA, C.V.RAMAN NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560093.
(CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 19.09.2018) 4. THE SHRI KESHVAMURTHY S/O CHANNARAYAPPA, NO.229, 2ND CROSS, MAHADEVAPURA VILLAGE, VARTHU HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK-560048.
5. SHRI T.RAJAPPA S/O THIPPAIAH, MALLUR VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK-560048. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.VIJAYSHANKAR, SENIOR ADV. FOR SRI K.G.SADASHIVAIAH, ADV. FOR C/R-2, R3(a) AND R-4; SRI S.V.PRAKASH, ADV. FOR R-5.) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.01.2016 PASSED BY THE SPL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE DISTRICT AT ANNEX-D.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This writ petition is filed by the State of Karnataka assailing the order dated 27.01.2016 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore North Sub Division, Bangalore District, in No.RRT(2)(E)CR.08/2015-16.
2. Learned Senior counsel Sri. S.Vijayashankar representing the learned counsel for caveator/respondent Nos.2, 3(a) and 4 would submit that the order impugned dated 27.01.2016 has been given effect to, on 22.02.2016 much prior to filing of the writ petition on 05.09.2017, and passing of the interim order on 22.02.2018. Hence, the writ petition does not survive for consideration and is rendered infructuous.
3. It is further submitted that the respondent No.4 has alienated 4 acres of land on 11.02.2016 and the respondent No.2 has alienated the land to an extent of 2 acres on 15.04.2016 and L.Rs of the respondent No.3 have alienated 4 acres of land on 16.04.2016, the subject lands.
4. Learned Additional Advocate General Sri.N.Dinesh Rao would submit that the land grant register maintained by the authorities shows that the entry No.23 was manipulated as entry No.23-A and new entry No.23 was inserted interpolating revenue entries. In view of the same, the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner is unjustifiable and cannot be sustained.
5. However, learned counsel fairly submits that, prior to filing of the writ petition, the orders of the Special Deputy Commissioner were given effect to, and the subject lands were sold by the respondents concerned, hence, the writ petition in the present form may not survive for consideration. Accordingly seeks liberty to the petitioners-the State of Karnataka to initiate appropriate proceedings against the purchasers of the subject lands.
6. In reply, the learned Senior counsel strongly objects to the same in as much as reserving liberty to the State to take appropriate action against the purchasers of the lands in question.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition is rendered infructuous in view of the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner dated 27.01.2016 having given effect to on 22.02.2016 and further the subject lands being sold by the concerned respondents on different dates mentioned supra, much earlier to the passing of the interim order on 22.02.2018 and filing of the writ petition on 05.09.2017. Hence the writ petition deserves to be dismissed as having become infructuous. However, the request of the petitioners-State, relating to the proceedings to be initiated in furtherance of the registered sale deeds, said to have been executed by the respondent Nos.2, 4 and the L.Rs of respondent No.3, appears to be reasonable. No doubt, ordinarily such right vests with the state but in the peculiar facts of the case, the same is made clear, liberty is reserved to the State to proceed further in accordance with law.
8. Hence the writ petition stands dismissed as having rendered infructuous reserving liberty to the petitioners-the State of Karnataka to resort to appropriate proceedings in accordance with law in furtherance of the orders given effect to, on 22.02.2016 and the alienation of the subject lands by the respondent Nos.2, 4 and the L.Rs of respondent No.3.
Sd/- JUDGE Dvr: