SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU
SMT. MANGALAGOWRAMMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WA 3176/2018



-: 1 :-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

WRIT APPEAL No.3176/2018 (SC/ST)

BETWEEN:

SMT. MANGALAGOWRAMMA,

W/O MUNISWAMY,

AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

R/AT KARANJI LAYOUT, MALUR TOWN,

KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.

... APPELLANT

(BY SRI. KEMPANNA. ADVOCATE,)

THROUGH V/C

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

VIDHANA SOUDHA,

BENGALURU-560 001.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

KOLAR DISTRICT,

KOLAR-563 101.

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

KOLAR SUB DIVISION,

KOLAR-563 101.

4. A. H. SRINIVASA,

S/O MUNITHAYAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

ABBENAHALLI VILLAGE,

-: 2 :-

KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK,

KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. VANI.H, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;

SRI. N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R4 THROUGH V/C)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE

IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE

DATED

30/08/2018

IN

WRIT

PETITION

NO.34468/2017,

CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION NO.34468/2017.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,

NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

The legality and correctness of the order dated

30/08/2018, passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No. 34468/2017 (SC/ST) is called in question in this

intra-court appeal. By the said order, the writ petition filed

by the appellant herein was dismissed.

2.

The writ petition was filed in respect of land

bearing Sy. No.197 of Abbenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli,

Malur Taluk, ad measuring 2.00 acres. The said land was

granted to Sri Akkannappa at an upset price by an order of

the Assistant Commissioner of Kolar Sub-Division dated

23.11.1961

vide

challan

No.115

dated

27.06.1963.

According to the appellant, the said land was granted

-: 3 :-

under the ‘Grow More Food’ Scheme. The Saguvali Chit in

respect of the said land was issued on 15.07.1963.

According to the appellant, name of Shri Akkannappa - the

grantee was entered in the Revenue Records with a

Mutation No. MR 16/1984-85. Copy of the extract of the

Land Grant Register maintained by the Tahsildar is

produced at Annexure-A to the writ petition, copy of the

Saguvali Chit at Annexure-B, the Mutation Extract is

produced as Annexure-C and the copy of the RTC is

produced as Annexure-D to the writ petition.

3.

According to the appellant, Sri Akkannappa

was suffering from ailments owing to his old age and the

appellant in order to help him came forward to purchase

the land from Akkannappa. But, Akkannappa was not in a

position to get the document registered immediately, on

account of his ailments and he entered into a Settlement

Deed/Agreement of Possession in favour of the appellant

and put the appellant in possession of the land bearing Sy.

No.197 measuring two acres situated at Abbehanalli village

which is the land granted under the ‘Grow More Food’

-: 4 :-

scheme. According to the appellant, Akkannappa utilized

the proceeds of sale of the land towards his medical and

domestic expenses and did not come forward to execute a

document of conveyance in favour of the appellant and he

died.

4.

That the appellant continued to remain in

possession and enjoyment of the land in question without

any interference and when the matter stood thus, a person

by name A. Krishnappa claiming to be the son of

Akkannappa tried to interfere with the possession of the

land by the appellant. Appellant filed O.S.No.270/2001 on

the file of Civil Judge, at Maluru seeking relief of

declaration and injunction against A.Krishnappa and

members of his family. In the said suit, there was a

compromise to the effect that the appellant was the

absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the land in

question and there was an order restraining A.Krsihnappa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top