1 in the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P. NOs.22537-22539/2019(KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O LATE HANUMAIAH NO.23, 2ND MAIN PUTTAIAHNAPALYA JAYANAGAR 9 TH BLOCK UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 069. 2. SMT. HANUMAKKA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS D/O LATE HANUMAIAH W/O LATE DODDAIAH NO.23, 2ND MAIN PUTTAIAHNAPALYA JAYANAGAR 9 TH BLOCK UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 069. 3. SMT. PUTTAMMA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS W/O LATE HANUMAIAH NO.23, 2ND MAIN PUTTAIAHNAPALYA JAYANAGAR 9 TH BLOCK UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 069. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V.B. SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) 2 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA VIDHANA VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVAN, 2ND FLOOR KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009. 4. THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK KANDAYA BHAVAN, 2ND FLOOR KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009. 5. SRI. VENKATARAJAPPA @ VENKATARAJU AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS S/O LATE THIMMAIAH THATAGUNI VILLAGE AND POST, KANAKAPURA ROAD KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK. 6. SRI. SANJEEVAIAH @ T. SANJEEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O LATE THIMMAIAH NO.1473, 17 TH “A” MAIN ROAD J.P. NAGAR, 2 ND STAGE BENGALURU - 560 078. 3 7. SMT. SHARADAMMA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS D/O LATE THIMMAIAH NO.23, 3RD CROSS SOMESHWARANAGAR 1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 011. 8. SMT. KAMALAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS D/O LATE THIMMAIAH NO.23, 3RD CROSS SOMESHWARANAGAR 1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 011. 9. SMT. GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS D/O LATE THIMMAIAH NO.23, 3RD CROSS SOMESHWARANAGAR 1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 011. 10. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS D/O LATE THIMMAIAH NO.23, 3RD CROSS SOMESHWARANAGAR 1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 011. 11. SMT. MUNIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS D/O LATE THIMMAIAH THATAGUNI VILLAGE AND POST KANAKAPURA ROAD KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 082. 12. SRI. T.R. RANGASWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O RUDRAPPA 4 THATAGUNI VILLAGE AND POST KANAKAPURA ROAD KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 082. 13. SRI. T.N. RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O R NARAYANAPPA THATAGUNI VILLAGE AND POST KANAKAPURA ROAD KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 082. 14. SRI. H. SABAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA THATAGUNI VILLAGE AND POST KANAKAPURA ROAD KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 082. 15. SRI. M VISHWANATH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O MADEGOWDA VADDARAHALLI VILLAGE CHOTTANAHALLI POST MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 430. 16. SMT. PARVATHAMMA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS W/O LATE HANUMAIAH THATAGUNI VILLAGE AND POST KANAKAPURA ROAD KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 082. 17. SMT. NITHYA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS D/O LATE HANUMAIAH 5 THATAGUNI VILLAGE AND POST KANAKAPURA ROAD KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 082. 18. SRI. DARSHAN AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS S/O LATE HANUMAIAH THATAGUNI VILLAGE AND POST KANAKAPURA ROAD KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 082. 19. SMT. SHWETHA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS D/O LATE HANUMAIAH THATAGUNI VILLAGE AND POST KANAKAPURA ROAD KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 082. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.R. NITHYANANDA, HCGP FOR R-1 TO 4; SRI. SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-5; SRI. H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR R-7 TO R-10, R-13, R-14; SRI. CHOKKA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-16 TO R-19) THESE W.Ps. ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:12.03.2019 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU, IN REVISION PETITION 345/2014-15 CONNECTED WITH REVISION PETITION 339/2014-15 VIDE ANNX-A. THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: 6 O R D E R Heard Sri.V.B.Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing for petitioners, Sri. Nithyananda, learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, Sri.Sharath Gowda, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5, Sri.H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.7 to 10, 13 and 14 and Sri. Chokka Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.16 to 19. No notice is issued to other respondents, since learned Advocates appearing for respondent referred to hereinabove have entered caveat on behalf of respective respondents and petition is being dismissed at the threshold for the reasons indicated herein below. 2. Petitioners claim to be grandchildren of Sri.Sanjeevappa @ Sanjeevaiah, S/o. late Mavalli Hanumaiah, have made a claim over Sy.No.44/2 measuring 3 acres 23 guntas situated at Agara Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk and as such they questioned the mutation entries made in respect of said land in MR No.28/2010-11, MRH No.H43/2013-14 and 7 MR No.H5/2013-14 by filing an appeal under Section 136(2) before third respondent, which was registered as RA (S) No.137/2014-15. On service of notice contesting respondents appeared, filed their objections and contended that late Sanjeevaiah had no issue and his wife’s brother namely, Smt. Hanumakka’s brother Sri. Thimmaiah used to take care of Sanjeevaiah, who had acquired title to said property under a registered sale deed dated 02.09.1936 and as such he had executed Will in favour of said Sri.Thimmaiah and on demise of said Sanjeevaiah, revenue entries came to be mutated in the name of Sri.Thimmaiah and on his demise, it was mutated in the Thimmaiah’s son – Sri. Venkatarajappa @ Venkataraju vide IHC/MR No.23/1983-84. It was further contended by the appellants that daughters of Thimmaiah had filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.2920/2005 on the file of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru and same having been comprised as per judgment and decree revenue records have been mutated in respect of beneficiaries under the decree and petitioners herein 8 have no right over the property in question. It was also contended that appellants are no-way connected with Sanjeevaiah. Assistant Commissioner after having noticed rival contentions without assigning any reason allowed the appeal vide order dated 13.01.2015 – Annexure-N. 4. Being aggrieved by said order respondents Nos.16 to 19 herein filed revision petition under Section 136(3) in Revision Petition No.345/2014-15 c/w Revision Petition No.339/2014-15 (filed by respondent No.5 herein), which was before second respondent. After having noticed rival contentions and scrutiny of entire documents Deputy Commissioner arrived at a conclusion that a serious dispute exists with regard to heirship of late Sanjeevaiah and to establish this fact, writ petitioners herein have already filed a suit O.S.No.1439/2013 on the file of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural district, Bangalore, and same was pending. Hence, it came to be held unless same is established, question of entering names of writ 9 petitioners in the revenue records would not be appropriate, particularly in the background of revenue entry having been carried out way back in the year 1983-84 vide MR No.23/1983-84 in the names of sons of Thimmaiah. Hence, second respondent has allowed the revision petition and set aside the order passed by Assistant Commissioner. Said finding does not suffer from any infirmity calling for interference at the hands of this Court either on facts or on law, inasmuch as, petitioners herein who are claiming to be Class 1 legal heirs of deceased Sanjeevaiah, have to establish their right in the pending suit. 5. That apart, at an undisputed point of time said Sanjeevaiah is said to have executed a Will in favour of Thimmaiah, pursuant to which revenue records came to be mutated in the name of Thimmaiah. On his demise revenue records came to be mutated in the name of Sri.Thimmaiah and on his demise, revenue records came to be mutated in the name of his son vide MR No.23/1983-84 which entries was not challenged 10 by the petitioners. It is only after daughters of Thimmaiah filed a suit in O.S.No.2920/2005 claiming share in the property and contending they being Class 1 heirs of Thimmaiah and as such entitled to share, which suit ended in a compromise and pursuant to said compromise decree passed in O.S.No.2920/2005, revenue records came to be mutated in the names of respective sharers. Petitioners herein challenged said entries in RA(S) No.137/2014-15 without challenging the entry MR No.23/1983-84. All these reasons cumulatively have swayed in the mind of Deputy Commissioner to set aside the order of Assistant Commissioner and as noticed hereinabove, there is no error committed by the Deputy Commissioner in that regard. 6. However, it is needless to state that in the light of writ petitioners having already filed a suit O.S.No.1439/2014 not only challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.2920/2005 but also contending they are the legal heirs of late Sanjeevaiah, 11 it would always open to them to substantiate their claim in that regard before competent Court. Hence, it is made clear that entries made in the revenue records in respect of property in question would definitely be subject to final result/outcome of OS No.1439/2014 and authorities would also be bound by such decree and judgment.