M.R.RAVI KUMAR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

- 1 -

NC: 2023:KHC:29357
WP No. 25426 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO. 25426 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1.
M.R. RAVI KUMAR,
SON OF MUNIRAJU,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT NO.30, 3RD MAIN,
8TH CROSS, SRI M.V. NAGAR,
RAMAMURTHY NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 016.
2.
SMT. KANAKARATHNA,
W/O. ANJANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT NO.35, 5TH CROSS,
DWARAKANAGAR, HOSKEREHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 085.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M.V. VEDACHALA, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
Digitally signed
by VIDYA G R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2023:KHC:29357
WP No. 25426 of 2022
2.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE URBAN,
KANDAYA BHAVAN,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3.
THE TAHSILDAR,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
K.R. PURAM,
BENGALURU - 560 016.
4.
M/S SHRENO LIMITED.,
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS
M/S. ALEMBIC GLASS INDUSTRIES LTD).,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT,
1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT ALEMBIC ROAD,
VADODARA - 390 003.
ALSO HAVING IS OFFICE AT ALEMBIC COLONY,
WHITEFIELD RAILWAY STATION,
WHITEFIELD,
BENGALURU - 560 066.
REPRESENTED BY ITS RESIDENT MANAGER,
MR. T. BALARAMAN,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. AJESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE FOR R4)

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO RECALL THE
ORDER DATED 07.09.2022 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT
IN
WP.NO.17761/2022
(KLR-RES)
(ANNEXURE-A)
AND
CONSEQUENTLY
BE
PLEASED
TO
DISMISS
THE
W.P.NO.17761/2022 (KLR-RES) VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.,

- 3 -

NC: 2023:KHC:29357
WP No. 25426 of 2022

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

The present petition has been filed seeking for recall of

the order dated 07.09.2022 passed in W.P.No.17761/2022 and

to dismiss W.P.No.17761/2022.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

submits that W.P.No.17761/2022 was disposed off in the

absence of the petitioners herein who had an interest in the

land which was the subject matter of the notice issued under

Sectios 94 and 104 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964

(for short 'the Act'). Accordingly, it is submitted that

observations made in the said writ petition, only insofar as

possession would prejudice the interest of the petitioners

herein in the civil suit that is pending between the petitioners

and the respondents in O.S.No.675/2007 which is a suit filed

for declaration and recovery of possession.

Though various contentions have been advanced,

the controversy is narrowed down to the grievance of the

petitioners to the extent that observations made regarding

possession with respect to the respondent No.4 insofar as the

- 4 -

suit scheduled property as well as observations relating to

derivation of title ought to be clarified as it is made only for the

purpose of disposal of the proceedings in challenge to the

notice issued under Section 94 of the Act and may not be

construed to be binding on the trial court which is deciding the

matter in the suit mentioned above.

Clear observations are made with respect to the

subject matter of property which is shown as scheduled-B to

the suit in O.S.675/2007. Observations insofar as possession or

derivation of title cannot be conclusive, as such findings are

made in the absence of the petitioners herein.

The trial court is at liberty to proceed independently

to decide the suit. It is clarified that the result of the order

passed in W.P.No.17761/2022 is not disturbed and subject to

such clarification as made above, the present petition is

disposed off. All contentions of both parties are kept open.

Insofar

the

office

objection

relating

maintainability is concerned, the said office objection is

overruled as the petitioners herein were not parties to the writ

petition with respect to which relief is sought for and it would

- 5 -

be an appropriate remedy to file a separate writ petition by a

person who is not a party in the earlier round of litigation that

is affected by the findings recorded in such proceedings.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MCR

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Click Here to Read the rest of this document