- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5708 WP No. 7883 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 7883 OF 2014 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: 1. 1(a) 1(b) SMT POOJAMMA DECEASED BY HER LRS SMT. H. GOWRAMMA W/O G.M. RAJESH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT: NO.10/11, 4TH BLOCK, 12TH MAIN, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 022. SRI. H. RAMA MURTHY S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.11/2, 1ST "E" MAIN ROAD POOJAMMA TEMPLE ROAD 4TH CROSS, GORAGUNTEPALAYA BENGALURU - 560 022. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V ANAND.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDINGS, BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY BEML, HOUSING BUILDING CO-OP. SOCIETY, Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5708 WP No. 7883 of 2014 3. NEW THIPPASANDRA POST, BEML, BANGALORE COMPLEX, POST BOX NO. 7501, BANGALORE - 560 075. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWER BANGALORE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. K.R. KRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.RHS(2) 662/76-77 DATED 31.12.1981 IN GAZETTED DATED 31.12.1981 IN SY. NO.117/1 TO AN EXTENT OF 10 GUNTAS PASSED BY THE R-3, VIDE ANNX-D THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioner claiming to be the erstwhile owner of land measuring 31 guntas bearing new Sy.No.117/1 and old Sy.No.30/2, situated at Halagewodayarahalli, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, having purportedly purchased from one Poojappa in terms of a registered deed of sale dated 24.05.1965 and out of which claimed to have sold an extent of 20 guntas in favour of one Narayanappa in terms of a deed of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5708 WP No. 7883 of 2014 sale dated 22.08.1967, thereby retaining the remaining extent of 11 guntas, is before this court seeking following reliefs. "a) quash the Preliminary Notification bearing No. RHS (2) 662/76-77 Dated 19/23rd December 1981 Gazette dated 31.12.1981. In Sy. No.117/1 to an extent of 10 guntas passed by the Respondent No.3. Vide Annexure "D" passed by the Respondent No.3. b) quash the Final Notification bearing RD 84/AQB 82 dated 06.10.1982 Published in the Gazette dated 14.10.1982 in Sy.No.117/1 to an extent of 10 guntas passed by the Respondent No.3. Vide Annexure "C" passed by the Respondent No.3. c) pass an order desisting the respondents from taking any further action in pursuance of the said notifications and from passing of the awards and from dispossessing the petitioners from the schedule lands. d) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, equity and law. e) To declare that the Acquisition Proceedings in so far as it relates to land covered to an extent of 10 guntas in respect of Sy.No.117/1 old Sy.No.30/2 situated at Halagevaderahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk in both preliminary and final notifications. f) The Preliminary Notification dated 31.12.1981 and Final Notification dated 06.10.1982 at Annexures 'C' and 'D' in extent of 10 guntas in respect of Sy.No.117/1 old Sy.No. 30/2 situated at Halagevaderahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk quashed by this Hon'ble Court." - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5708 WP No. 7883 of 2014 2. It is further case of the petitioner that though she is the owner to an extent of 11 guntas of land which forming part of Sy.No.117/1 which remained after alienating 20 guntas of land in favour of Narayanappa as above, when the respondent No.3-Special Land Acquisition Officer issued preliminary notification dated 28.12.1981 names of one Ramaswamy and Gangappa were shown as against the land in Sy.No.117/1 and did not reflect the name of the petitioner. 3. It is her further case that since neither her name was reflected in the preliminary notification nor her properties were acquired, she continued to be in possession of the property even till date, however, the respondent No.2 who is the Secretary of Housing Cooperative Society is causing interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid property of the petitioner, constraining the petitioner to file a suit in O.S.No.26233/2009 on the file of the City Civil Judge, Mayohall seeking relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The said suit came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 10.07.2012 against which the petitioner had preferred a regular first appeal in RFA.No.1459/2012 which also - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5708 WP No. 7883 of 2014 came to be dismissed by holding that the Civil Court did not have jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter as the same was acquired by the respondent -authorities. It is these facts circumstances which lead the petitioner to file the present petition. 4. Since the deed of sale dated 24.05.1965 under which petitioner claims to have purchased the subject property did not refer to Sy.No.117/1 as claimed, this Court vide order dated 16.01.2025 had sought clarification from the counsel for the petitioner with regard to the date on which land in Sy.No.30/2 was assigned with a New Sy.No.117/1. 5. In furtherance thereof, an application dated 27.01.2025 has been filed by the counsel for the petitioner under order VII Rule 14(1) of CPC seeking to produce copies of certain documents. Counsel for the petitioner referring to said documents submits that land in Sy.No.117 originally stood in the name of Poojappa son of Kariappa as evidenced by Hissa Survey Tippani dated 27.03.1961 produced at page Nos. 4 and 5 of the said application. He submits that said Poojappa is none other than the vendor of the petitioner. He refers to another - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5708 WP No. 7883 of 2014 document "Karda" produced at page No.6 of the application and contend that there is a reference to re-survey No.117 given to said document. He refers to Karnataka Revision Settlement Akarband extract produced at page No.7 to show that extent of 31 guntas of land was assigned as Sy.No.117/1. He also refers to a copy of RTC extract produced at page No.9 of the said application to contend that entire extent of 31 guntas of land in Sy.No.117/1 is reflected in the name of Narayanappa who is none other than the purchaser under the deed sale dated 22.08.1967 executed by the very petitioner. Thus, referring to these documents learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that though in the deed of sale dated 24.05.1965 under which the petitioner purchased subject property from Poojappa, due to inadvertence old Sy.No.30/2 was mentioned instead of new Sy.No.117. He submits that said mistake was rectified in the deed of sale dated 22.08.1967 executed by the petitioner conveying 20 guntas of land in favour of Narayanappa, in which the extent of land measuring 20 guntas is shown to be bearing Sy.No.117/1. He submits inference needs to be drawn from the contents of these documents, that what was purchased by petitioner under the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5708 WP No. 7883 of 2014 deed of sale dated 24.05.1965 was the land in Sy.No.117 and not Sy.No.30/2. Therefore, respondent- Land Acquisition Officer ought to have recognised that 11 guntas of land which is still retained and processed by the petitioner. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Housing Cooperative Society submits that except production of the deed of sale dated 24.05.1965 petitioner has not produced any document establishing her right, title and interests specifically in respect of Sy.No.117. He submits the said deed of sale refers to land in Sy.No.30/2. He further submits merely because there is a mention in the deed of sale dated 22.08.1967 purportedly executed by the petitioner in favour of Narayanappa referring to Sy.No.117, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the same, inasmuch as, the petitioner has not produced any material other than the deed of sale dated 24.05.1965 justifying her claim that the extent of 11 guntas of land in Sy.No.117. He submits the preliminary notification has been issued based on the entries of the names of kathedars in revenue records and till date petitioner has not produced any revenue records reflecting her name to the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5708 WP No. 7883 of 2014 extent of 11 guntas in Sy.No.117. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition. 7. Heard. Perused the records. 8. At Sl.No.26 of the Preliminary notification dated 31.12.1981 produced at Annexure-D the names of certain persons namely, Munigangappa, Parvathamma wife of Basavachar, Lingamma wife of Gangappa, Papaiah son of Chowdappa are shown as against the land in Sy.No.117. There is no mention with regard to the name either of the petitioner or her vendor. At Sl.No.25 of the final notification dated 14.10.1982 names of certain persons namely, M Ramaswamy, Ganganna, Munigangappa, Parvathamma wife of Basavachar, Lingamma w/o Ganganna, Papaiah S/o Chowdappa are shown against land in Sy.No.117/1 to 117/6. There is no mention of name of the petitioner. That deed of sale dated 24.05.1965 under which the petitioner claims to have purchased the subject property reflect the description property in Sy.No.30/2 measuring 30 guntas. No revenue records have been furnished by the petitioner from the date of the purchase till date with - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:5708 WP No. 7883 of 2014 regard to her name having been mutated in respect of land in Sy.No.117. 9. Though an attempt is made by counsel for the petitioner on instruction by filing an application dated 27.01.2025 along with certain documents to connect name of Poojappa the vendor of the petitioner with respect to Sy.No.117, the said documents do not evince credibility with regard to the claim made by the petitioner of she having purchased 31 guntas of land in Sy.No.117 under the deed of sale dated 24.05.1965 as noted above. Further the RTC extract produced at page No.9 of the application noted hereinabove reflects the name of Narayanappa to the entire extent of 31 guntas in respect of Sy.No.117/1. 10. The Land Acquisition Officer has notified land in Sy.No.117 and has shown the names of the parties as noted above apparently based on revenue records. Petitioner who had unsuccessfully approached the Civil Court by filing the suit in O.S.No.26233/2009 and having come to this Court as far back as on 2014 and despite providing opportunity by this Court is unable to produce any revenue records reflecting her name in - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:5708 WP No. 7883 of 2014 respect of land in Sy.No.117. It cannot be said that there has been some mistake or omissions on the part of the revenue authorities in not mentioning the name of the petitioner which is not the case of the petitioner either. In the absence of petitioner showing any prima facie material of she owning and retaining land in Sy.No.117, no fault can be attributed on the land acquiring authorities. Petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed. 11. At this juncture, counsel for the petitioner submits that an appeal has been filed by the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner in R.A No.282/2014 seeking rectification of the revenue records with respect to land in Sy.No.117 and that said proceedings are still pending consideration. Needless to state notwithstanding the dismissal of the petition, if in the event of petitioner succeeding in those proceedings, petitioner is at liberty to seek such remedy as may be available and permissible under law. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27