Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15633 WP No. 8128 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 8128 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MUNIYAPPA, S/O LATE ANNAYYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 93 YEARS,
2. SMT. MUNIYAMMA D/O SRI. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
3. SRI. RAJAPPA S/O SRI. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, ALL THE ABOVE PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDENTS OF HULLAHALLI VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT. 4. SRI. MANOHAR S/O SRI. LINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
5. SRI. MADHUKESH S/O SRI. LINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
6. SMT. MANDHARA D/O SRI. LINGAPPA Digitally signed by JYOTHI MANJUNATH Location: High Court of Karnataka
- 2 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15633 WP No. 8128 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, ALL THE ABOVE PETITIONERS NO.4 TO 6 ARE RESIDENTS OF SARJAPURA VILLAGE AND HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 562 125. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. OM KUMAR R., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, K.G. ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 009. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE, K.G. ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 009. 3. THE TAHASILDHAR ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 562 106. 4. SRI. VEERENDRA KATHURIA, S/O SRI. PRANANATH KATHURIA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDENT OF SOMPURA VILLAGE B. HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 562 125. 5. SRI. LINGAPPA, S/O SRI. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
- 3 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15633 WP No. 8128 of 2024 RESIDENT OF HULLAHALLI VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 560 083. 6. SRI. DHANANJAYA H.M, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.14, 'HARINILAYA', GSR LAYOUT, ATTIBELE, ANEKAL, BANGALORE - 562 107. 7. SRI. VEERABHADRAPPA, SON OF LATE BHADRA REDDY N, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2, CHINTALMADIVALA, BANGALORE - 560 099. 8. SRI. KANTHARAJA K, SON OF SRI. KAVERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 155, 2ND AVENUE, TEACHERS COLONY, KORAMANGALA 1ST BLOCK, VENKATAPURA, BANGALORE - 560 034 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. MANJUNATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. R. RANGASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. A.N. GANGADHARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI.
C.R. RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R8)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-S PASSED ON 22/02/2024 IN RP NO. 196/2020 BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, AND GRANT/ISSUE SUCH OTHER WRIT OR
ORDER AND ETC.
- 4 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15633 WP No. 8128 of 2024
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER On the basis of a Agreement of Sale dated 26.07.1994, Sri. Veerendra Kathuria instituted a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.434/1994 against his vendor Sri. Lingappa. On 30.05.1996, after contest, the said suit in O.S.No.434/1994 was decreed.
2. Being aggrieved, Sri. Lingappa preferred an appeal in R.F.A.No.516/1996. The said appeal was dismissed on 23.02.2007. It is stated that no further appeal was preferred and as a consequence, the decree of specific performance obtained by Sri. Veerendra Kathuria has become final. Thereafter, he instituted execution proceedings in Execution Case No.13/2014. In these execution proceedings, a Court Commissioner was appointed to execute the Sale Deed by an order dated
- 5 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15633 WP No. 8128 of 2024 05.04.2018 of the Executing Court and thereafter, the Sale Deed was also executed in favour of Sri. Veerendra Kathuria on 20.04.2018 and the same was also registered.
3. It may be pertinent to state here that after the appeal filed by Sri. Lingappa was dismissed on 23.02.2007, his children instituted a suit in O.S.No.682/2013 seeking for partition, in which, they made Sri. Lingappa and his siblings and his children as parties. This suit for partition ended in a Compromise Decree on 18.11.2013, on the basis of which, the khatas were mutated.
4. Being aggrieved by the order appointing a Court Commissioner for execution of the Sale Deed, Sri. Lingappa preferred R.A.No.5024/2018. The Appellate Court allowed the said appeal, set aside the order, by which, a Court Commissioner was appointed and remanded the matter to the Executing Court for reconsideration.
- 6 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15633 WP No. 8128 of 2024
5. It is submitted that pursuant to the said order of remand, the matter is still pending adjudication before the Executing Court.
6. It is also admitted by the petitioners' counsel that the petitioners have infact instituted a suit in O.S.No.947/2018 seeking for setting aside the decree of specific performance obtained by Sri. Veerendra Kathuria in O.S.No.434/1994 and the said suit is also pending
consideration.
7. As the matter stood thus, the petitioners approached the Assistant Commissioner and requested him to set aside the mutation made in favour of Sri. Veerendra Kathuria on the basis of the Sale Deed that had been executed in his favour in the execution proceedings. The Assistant Commissioner taking note of the order passed in R.A.No.5024/2018, by which, the Appellate Court had set aside the order appointing the
- 7 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15633 WP No. 8128 of 2024 Court Commissioner, has directed the revenue entries which had been made in favour of Sri. Veerendra Kathuria, to be set aside.
8. Being aggrieved by the said
order, Sri. Veerendra Kathuria preferred revision under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and the Deputy Commissioner, by the impugned order, has set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and as a consequence, the revenue entries has stood before the
order of the Assistant Commissioner have stood restored.
9. The petitioners are none other than the father, sister, brother, daughter and sons of Sri. Lingappa. They contend that the Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned order even without notifying them. It is their case that since the khata had stood in their names pursuant to the Compromise Decree passed in
- 8 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15633 WP No. 8128 of 2024 O.S.No.682/2013, they were required to be heard in the matter.
10. It is also stated that immediately after getting the Sale Deed registered in favour of Sri. Veerendra Kathuria, has immediately executed four Sale deeds in favour of four different persons on 13.03.2024 and the khatas have also been registered in their names.
11. It is therefore contended that if the entire series of transactions conducted by Sri. Veerendra Kathuria is taken note of, it was clear that Sri. Veerendra Kathuria was attempting to hoodwink the courts and get the properties disposed of. It is therefore contended that the
order of the Deputy Commissioner cannot be sustained. 12. At the outset, it is to be noticed here that as on the date of the Agreement of Sale was executed on 26.07.1994, the khata of land in question did stand in the name of Sri. Lingappa. - 9 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15633 WP No. 8128 of 2024
13. It is also not in dispute that the Civil Court accepted this Agreement of Sale and granted a decree of specific performance in O.S.No.434/1994 on 30.05.1996 and this has also been confirmed by this Court in R.F.A.No.516/1996 on 23.02.2007. It is therefore clear that Sri. Veerendra Kathuria has secured a decree of specific performance, which has become final insofar as Sri. Lingappa is concerned, who was admittedly the Khatedar. 14. It is also not in dispute that after the said decree was passed and after the appeal was dismissed on 23.02.2007, the petitioners claimed to have instituted a suit for partition and secured a Compromise Decree on 18.11.2013 and on the basis of this Compromise Decree, they claim to have got their entries mutated in their favour. Notwithstanding this assertion, the fact remains that as on that date of Lingappa’s appeal in R.F.A.No.516/1996 had been dismissed and the khata in
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15633 WP No. 8128 of 2024 respect of the property did stand in the name of Sri. Lingappa and not in the name of the petitioners herein. 15. As also observed above, it is not in dispute that the petitioners are also before the Civil Court by filing O.S.No.947/2018, in which, they have made a specific prayer for setting aside the decree of specific performance granted in favour of Sri. Veerendra Kathuria in O.S.No.434/1994. 16. It is obvious that unless this decree of specific performance passed in O.S.No.434/1994 is set aside, the petitioners cannot have any claim over the lands in question, fundamentally, because their entitlement to the property came about after R.F.A.No.516/1996 was dismissed on 23.02.2007 and their rights were sought to be crystallized by way of a compromise in a subsequent suit filed six years thereafter in O.S.No.682/2013. 17. In the light of these particular facts, it is clear that the petitioners cannot have a locus standi to question
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15633 WP No. 8128 of 2024 the revenue entry standing in the name of either Sri.
Lingappa or in the name of the purchaser Sri. Veerendra Kathuria. 18. It may also pertinent to state here that Sri. Lingappa approached the Assistant Commissioner and requested him to set aside the order of mutation made in favour of Sri. Veerendra Kathuria on the premise that the Appellate Court in R.A.No.5024/2018 had set aside the
order appointing a Court Commissioner.
19. The Assistant Commissioner has accepted this plea which has been over reversed by the Deputy Commissioner.
20. It is to be noticed here that though R.A.No.5024/2018 was allowed and the order appointing a Court Commissioner had been set aside, the fact remains that the Sale Deed had been executed and also registered in favour of Sri. Veerendra Kathuria.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15633 WP No. 8128 of 2024
21. In the light of this particular fact, it is obvious that the khata should reflect the name of the person who has registered Sale Deed in his favour.
22. It is however required to be observed here that in the event Lingappa's objections in Execution Case No.13/2014 regarding the execution of the Sale Deed is ultimately upheld, the Execution Court will, as a consequence, declare the Sale Deed executed in favour of Sri. Veerendra Kathuria a nullity and the Revenue Authority would thereafter will have to cancel the entries made in favor of Sri. Veerendra Kathuria.
23. It must be noticed here that the petitioners did not approach the Assistant Commissioner and it was only Sri. Lingappa, who had approached the Assistant Commissioner. On this score also, it will have to be stated that they have no locus standi to question the order of either the Assistant Commissioner or the consequential
order passed by the Deputy Commissioner.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15633 WP No. 8128 of 2024
24. As already observed above, since the petitioners are before the Civil Court in O.S.No.947/2018 seeking for setting aside the decree granted in favour of Sri. Veerendra Kathuria in O.S.No.434/1994, they would not be entitled to have their names entered in the revenue records, till their prayer for setting aside the decree is granted.
25. In that view of the matter, the Deputy Commissioner was perfectly justified in passing the impugned order and setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner, the writ petition is accordingly, allowed.
26. It is however made clear that the revenue entries made pursuant to the registered Sale Deed executed in favour of Sri. Veerendra Kathuria would always be subject to the result of Execution Case No.13/2014 and also O.S.No.947/2018 that has been issued by the petitioners herein.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15633 WP No. 8128 of 2024
27. It is needless to state that if the Executing Court declares the Sale Deed for Sri. Veerendra Kathuria as a nullity, the revenue entries will stand automatically cancelled, even if the Executing Court rejects the claim of Sri. Lingappa.
28. If the claim of the petitioners that the decree obtained by Sri. Veerendra Kathuria in O.S.No.434/1994 is to be annulled in the suit filed by them in O.S.No.947/2018, even then entries entered in favour of Sri. Veerendra Kathuria would stand rescinded, but until then the entries would have to be continued in the name of Sri. Veerendra Kathuria. Subject to the above, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47