Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 48109
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.42710 OF 2015 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA
RESIDING AT NO.44,
THAMARASANAHALLI VILLAGE,
HESARGHATTA HOBLI, T.B. POST,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560089.
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.,
1(a) SMT. RATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
D/O LATE HANUMAIAH,
RESIDING AT CHUNCHANAKUPPE VILLAGE,
THAVAREKERE HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
1(b) SRI. VENKATACHALA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O LATE HANUMAIAH
1(c)
SRI. SRINIVASA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
S/O LATE HANUMAIAH
(b) AND (c) ARE RESIDING AT No.44,
THAMMARASANAHALLI VILLAGE,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, T.B. POST,
2
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560089.
AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER
THE ORDER OF THE COURT.
&PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. D.A.SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE (THROUGH VC))
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560001.
2.
THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TALUK PANCHAYATH,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
YELAHANKA,
BANGALORE-560064.
3.
THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
HURULICHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE PANCHAYATH,
HESARGHATTA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560 089
4.
SRI. HANUMANTHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O SRI. NARASAIAH,
R/AT THAMARASANAHALLI VILLAGE,
HESARGHATTA HOBLI, T.B. POST,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560089.
&RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT
PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. B. SATEESH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3;
DR. V. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4;
NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.2
3
CAUSE
TITLE
AMENDED
VIDE
COURT
DATED
05.01.2022)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS AND SET ASIDE/CANCEL
THE
IMPUGNED
ORDER
OFFICIAL
MEMORANDUM
NO.BNTP/VP/CR/184/11-12 DATED 26.11.2011 PASSED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT REGARDING THE CHANGE OF KHATA IN THE
NAME OF THE WIFE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT NAMELY
SMT.BHAGYAMMA, WHO IS DECEASED, IN RESPECT OF THE
PROPERTY BEARING SITE NO.44, V.P.KHATA NO.50 (LATER
ILLEGALLY BIFURCATED AND ASSIGNED NEW V.P.NOS.50/44/1
AND 50/44/2) SITUATED AT THAMARASANAHALLI VILLAGE,
HURULICHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE PANCHAYATH, HESARAGATTA
HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 8B9 GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner (since deceased) has challenged the
Order dated 26.11.2011 passed by the respondent No.2 by
which the name of the wife of the respondent No.4 was
ordered to be continued in column Nos.9 and 11 of the
RTC in respect of the property i.e., site No.44 measuring
48 feet x 36 feet and situate at Thamarasanahalli village,
Hurulichikkanahalli Village Panchayath, Hesaraghatta hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk (henceforth referred to as the
8subject property9).
4
The petitioner claims that the subject propety
was granted to his father by the State Government and
that he was placed in possession of the subject property.
His father had also constructed a house in a portion of the
subject property and retained the remaining portion. The
khata of the subject property stood in his father9s name till
the year 2003-04. The Panchayat had assigned new V.P.
khata No.37/44 to the subject property. His father died on
06.06.1973. The petitioner and his family members were
in possession of the subject property. The petitioner got
his name entered in the revenue records. When things
stood thus, the respondent No.4 allegedly got the subject
property bifurcated into two portions and V.P. khata
No.37/44 was assigned new V.P. khata No.50/44/1 in the
name of Smt. Bhagyamma, the wife of the respondent
No.4 while new V.P. khata No.50/44/2 was issued in the
name of the petitioner. The petitioner approached the
respondent No.4 and demanded the right under which he
claimed title to portion of the subject property. The
petitioner alleges that there was no basis for the
5
bifurcation of the khata and to effect khata in the name of
the wife of the respondent No.4. On coming to know of
the said illegal bifurcation, the petitioner during his life
time filed O.S. No.1290/2011 before the II Additional Civil
Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, which is stated
to be pending as on date.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid bifurcation,
the present writ petition is filed.
The respective learned counsel for respondent
No.3 and respondent No.4 are present.
5.
It is seen from the impugned Order passed by
the respondent No.2 that the name of Smt. Bhagyamma,
the wife of the respondent No.4, was entered in the khata
register
based
on
a
document
dated
08.03.1991
purportedly executed by Sri Dasappa in favour of the wife
of the respondent No.4, which was not registered in
accordance with law. If that be so, the khata could not
have been bifurcated. However, since the suit in O.S.
No.1290/2011 filed by the petitioner (since deceased) is
6
pending consideration before the Court of II Additional
Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, the khata
entered in the name of the Smt. Bhagyamma, the wife of
the respondent No.4, in respect of portion of the subject
property shall be subject to the outcome of the said suit.
6.
It is needless to mention that the respondent
No.3 shall take steps to enter the name of the person, who
succeeds in the said suit in O.S. No.1290/2011.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE
sma
