1 in the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF MARCH, 2021 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION No.517/2021 (KLR-RR/SUR)

BETWEEN

1. SRI. N.B. SHIVASHANKAR S/O. LATE N.L. BYRE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.215, 15 TH C CROSS, 2ND STAGE, 2ND PHASE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BANGALORE-560 086.

2. SRI. N.B. GURUDEVA S/O. LATE N.L. BYRE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO. 4, FTI COLONY, NEAR WATER TANK, NANDINI LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 096.

3. SRI. N.B. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O. LATE N.L. BYRE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO. T-19, ”KRISHNA DWELLINGTON”, B-BLOCK, DEVINAGAR MAIN ROAD, RMV 2 ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560 094.

4. SMT. N.B. MAHALAKSHMI W/O. SRI. H.B. VENKATESH, D/O. LATE N.L. BYRE GOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.5, FTI COLONY, NEAR WATER TANK, NANDINI LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 096. ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI A MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADV.)

AND

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE ITS REVENUE SECRETARY, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE-560001.

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH DIVISION, BANGALORE-560001.

4. THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560001.

5. THE DEPUTY THASILDAR, NADA KACHERI, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH TRANSPORT, COMPLEX BUILDING, GROUND FLOOR, KENGERI, BANGALORE-560 060.

6. SRI. V. BASAVARAJ S/O. VEERABHADRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

R/AT NO. 37/2, RAGHAVENDRA COLONY, CHAMARAJAPET, BANGALORE-560 018.

7. SRI. H.NANDISH KATE S/O. HANUMANTHA RAO KATE, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT BELUR ESTATE, KUSHALNAGAR SOMWARPET ROAD, SOMWARPET, NORTH KODAGU-571 236, AND ALSO AT NO.128, CHAKKALURU, CHANNAPATTANA, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5, SRI K.ANANDA, ADV. FOR C/R7.)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.01.2019 PASSED BY R-3 DATED 23.1.2019 IN R.A.(S)380/2018-19 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-R AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.9.2020 PASSED BY R-2 IN REVISION PETITION NO.RRT(DIS)NO.138/2019 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-T ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS ETC.

THIS WP COMING ON FOR ‘PRELIMINARY HEARING’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the Caveator-respondent and the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners’ late mother was the owner of an extent of 5 acres 13 guntas comprised in Survey

No.154/10 of Kengeri Village, Bengaluru South Taluk. That she had acquired title in the lands under a registered sale deed dated 18.10.1984 executed by one M. Sanjeevappa and one Munipapanna, both sons of one late Thayappa and

4 other family members for a valuable sale consideration of

Rs.2,66,250/-. That out of the said extent of 5 acres 13 guntas, the mother of the petitioners had alienated an extent of 2 acres to one P. Parthasarathy and two more pieces of land measuring 1 acre 16 guntas, each, respectively in favour of S.N. Puttegowda. That in respect of the remaining extent of 21 guntas and 2 guntas Kharab the same was phoded and new survey No.154/15 was

assigned and revenue entries were mutated in the name of their mother Puttalakshmamma.

3. While so, it came to their knowledge that the 6 th respondent had executed a sale deed in favour of the 7 th respondent on the strength of a GPA and execution of the

GPA is totally denied and that the sale deed also has been executed after passing away of their mother. On these facts, it is contended, that the petitioners have set the criminal law in motion with a complaint to the Deputy

Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru West on 27.10.2018.

4. It is submitted that on the strength of sale deed the revenue authorities have mutated the name of the

Caveator-7th respondent and that pursuant to the sale deed, the 7 th respondent made a request for change of Khata which came to be registered by the Tahasildar. In appeal, the Assistant Commissioner was pleased to allow the same.

The same was questioned by the petitioners before the 2 nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner who was pleased to reject the same.

5. It is submitted by the counsels that the petitioners have in fact approached the Civil Court and have prayed for a declaration and also for the relief of injunction in O.S.

No.5257/2020 and the same is pending on the file of City

Civil Judge, Bengaluru.

6. In view of the pendency of the comprehensive suit before the jurisdictional court, this court is of the considered opinion that any pronouncement on the merits of the case would impeach upon the trial court’s independence and rendering of an unbiased and uninfluenced reasoning in support of his judgment. In that view of the matter, this court is of the considered opinion that the parties should be permitted to have their lis adjudicated by the competent

Civil Court which is already seized off the matter.

7. The 4 th respondent is directed to enter the details of the pending litigation namely O.S. No.5257/2020 in column

No.11 of RTC in order to deter either of the parties from creating any third party rights over the disputed property, pending disposal of the suit. The entry in column No.11

shall be altered/modified/deleted and further entries in the revenue records shall be entered into in accordance with the judgment and decree to be rendered in O.S. No.5257/2020.

The writ petition stands disposed off in the above observations.

The trial court shall hear and dispose off the matter uninfluenced by any of the observations made by the revenue authorities.

All contentions are left open. None of the observations made hereinabove are to be construed as one on the merits of the case.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

No order as to costs.

Sd/- JUDGE

Chs CT-HR