Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 28440
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 3384 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
S.BABU REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O LATE SRINIVAS REDDY, R/AT SOMPURA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 106.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVARAJU M.K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDINGS, Digitally BENGALURU -560 001, signed by V MANJUSHA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
BAI Location: High Court of 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, Karnataka BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, KEMPE GOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.
3. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL-562 106.
5. REVENUE INSPECTOR, SARJAPURA NADA KACHERI, SARJAPURA, ANEKAL -562 106.
SONNAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS, 6. SMT. VENKATAMMA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, W/O LATE SONNAPPA 7. THIMMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O LATE SONNAPPA, 8. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O LATE SONNAPPA, 9. NAGARAJU S.S., AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O LATE SONNAPPA, R6 TO R9 ARE R/AT SOMPURA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 106.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHOBHA K.H., HCGP FOR R1 TO R5;
SRI. B.M.HALASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R6 TO R9)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.01.2022 PASSED BY SECOND RESPONDENT THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT AT BENGALURU IN REVISION PETITION NO.36/2018 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NOs.6 TO 9 IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.123, RE-SURVEY NO.123/1 MEASURING 12 GUNTAS SITUATED AT COMPURA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, VIDE ANNEXURE-F BY UPHOLDING THE ORDER DATED 15.12.2017 PASSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION IN R.A(A)No.308/2015-16 VIDE ANNEXURE-E IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Aggrieved the order passed by respondent No.2 -
Deputy Commissioner in R.P.No.36/2018 dated 11.01.2022 (vide Annexure-F to the W.P.), respondent No.4 therein has preferred this writ petition.
2. The grandfather of the petitioner has purchased
12 guntas of land in Sy.No.123/1 in Sompura Village, Anekal Taluk by a registered sale deed dated 27.02.1967 from one Kaverappa. The said land is a thoti inamti land. The wife of the said Kaverappa namely, Dyavamma, was said to be doing the services of a thoti and the land in question was an emolument attached to the office of thoti. The said land was re-granted in favour of Dyavamma on 22.04.1982 under the provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961. Respondent Nos.6 to 9 claiming under the said Dyavamma after her demise got their names mutated in the revenue records in respect of the land in question. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein filed an appeal before respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner, who ordered for effecting the katha in respect of the lands in favour of the petitioner herein. Against the said order, respondent Nos.6 to 9 preferred a revision before respondent No.2, who reversed the order of respondent No.3 and has ordered that the katha of lands shall stand in the name of respondent Nos.6 to 9. Aggrieved by the same the present writ petition is filed.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the vendor, Kaverappa, was also doing the work of a thoti and he has executed the sale deed in favour of the grandfather of the petitioner and he has acquired valid title over the property and that respondent No.2 erred in passing the impugned order.
4. Per contra, the respondents submit that Dyavamma was the thoti and not Kaverappa and Kaverappa never had any right over the property and the land was never alienated by Dyavamma and only if she had alienated the same, the petitioners would have got any right over the property.
5. The documents produced by the parties show that Dyavamma was serving as the thoti and the land was attached to the said office of thoti and she did not alienate the property. The said land has been later re-granted to Dyavamma on 22.04.1982. Under the said circumstances, Kaverappa cannot be held to have any right over the property and he could not have alienated the same and the said sale executed by him does not confer any right on the purchaser.
6. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any error in the order passed by respondent No.2 and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
