Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
D.K.SINGH, TARA VITASTA GANJU
Somascan Society (A Charitable Society Registered Under The Societies Registration Act, 1860) – Appellant
Versus
Chinnavenkatamma W/o Venkatesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
1. The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 19.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.39809/2012 filed by the respondents.
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking in the writ petition.
3. The appellants have also challenged the order dated 04.07.2014 passed in I.A.Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 of 2013; I.A.Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 of 2014 to recall the judgment and order dated 19.02.2023 as mentioned above.
4. The petitioners who filed the writ petition claim that they are the grantees of land in Survey No.44 of Mullur Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. Before the grant was made in their favour, they were in possession of the said land which would be evident from the revenue records of 1967 to 1968 onwards. The petitioners name reflects in the revenue records. It is further stated that they were given this land finally by grant dated 17.11.1979. Though the grant was made for an upset price, the same was waived in full as per Rule 12 (4) of the KARNATAKA LAND GRANT RULES , 1977. The petitioners' father made the representation to issue Saguvali Chit. Father of the pe
The Deputy Commissioner cannot cancel land grants without proper authority and notice, and claims of forgery must be substantiated by credible evidence.
Fraud vitiates all judicial acts; claims of land ownership based on fraudulent documents cannot establish valid title.
it was impermissible to Collector to have taken the entries nos.2208 and 2209 in suo motu revision after a period of almost close to five years. Therefore, the exercise of power by the Collector in t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cancellation of a mutation must adhere to the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions, and the authority reviewing the muta....
The SSRD's factual findings on land measurement are conclusive and not subject to judicial review under Article 226 if no prejudice is shown.
State's delayed challenge to the land grant lacks merit as no substantiating evidence was presented, affirming the integrity of rights established over decades.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
