,, 1 W
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2o-.1_o
BEFORE T
THE HON'BLE M'R.JUSTICE B.S. PATI1,
w.P.No.12944/2o1o»{m.R-R;ésj«"91;' 'V
BETWEEN:
Smt.Puttagangamma,
W/0 Dasegowda,
D / 0 late Mangamma,
Aged about 70 years, _ ,_ ; _ .,
R/o Pura Village, Kasabal-iob3i,, }
Turuvekere Taluk, '- _ 2 _'
Tumkur District. V -- " '.P_ETITIONER
{By Sri R.c.eova1aswamy, Adv.) 1 ,
AND:
1. The State of Vloiamvataka, " ' _
Rep.3oy its Secretary' _
Department of'Re{I'er111e',---- '
Vidhana Sou'dha;._ A 'Q
Ba§1iga,1.ore~01.. _ " ' '
V" ' 2 .« Commissioner,
V Tumk.arrDist1'ict, Tumkur.
3. Ta«hsi1j_da'r,
Turuv__eker-e Taluk, Turuvekere.
'A h " " -- , Sri ashekaraiah.
S )'-o Giriyappa,
--..V"Aged about 51 years,
VM Sri T.M.GiI'iyappa,
S / 0 Mudahgirigowda,
Aged about 61 years,
6. Sri Nanjegowda,
S / 0 Byatarayagowda.
Aged about 59 years,
7. Sn' T.C.Lakshmanaiah,
S/o Channappa,
Aged about 61 years,
8. Sn' Doddarangaiah,
S / o Chikkarangaiah, : 0
Aged about 51 years,
Respondents 4 to 8 are _ --~
residing at Thalakere Village, pg
Kasaba Hobli, Tumvekere Ta1_u_k;-_ _y
Tumkur District. . ” “RESPONTJENTS
(By Sri R.Om Kumar, AGAD
Sri Jayakumar S.Pati1, S:.r;~€vou’nse1_for ”
This writ:-.,pet’ition~.is flied under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constituitioijfiof ‘India p.faying_.to’–.quash the order passed by
the 2nd respond’ent_; De_p’uty Commissioner, Tumkur, in case
No.RP.66/di2U’O9}-5,10 d?ated”19;3.20’1’0’Vide Annexure–F and etc.
This on for Final Hearing this day,
the Court made the fo110WiI.1g:–
” ….. _. » ORDER
,O1*vder’y.._d’ated 19.03.2010 passed by the Deputy
Conimissiotifer,Vjfumkur, is challenged in this writ petition. By
‘V the the Deputy Commissioner, exercising his powers
“‘,.’utider_.&Section 136(3) read with Section 67(2) of the Karnataka
Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act’), has held that the
‘ ing land in Sy.No.272 measuring 2 acres shall be treated
– 3 Dlflld
as Government land and the name of the Government shall be
entered in Column Nos.9 and 12(2) of the RTC.
2. The claim of the petitioner is that the property.._hearing
Sy.No.272 is her ancestral property and she is the-gahsblute
owner of the property having inherited the
grandfather late Thimmegowda. According to the titi’on_er, .
grandfather Thimrnegowda acquired hearing
measuring 3 acres 12 guntas public auction.’l..’1’o§._evid.ence the
same, reliance is placed on Column ‘No.9 of the where
name of Thimmegowda is rnentioned”‘nVotigng,, the interest of the
villagers as well. Reliance. is Valso ” on the RR entry
bearing_’t’N’o;7;.;”.3;§’p5iv,l.’fojiind No.10 of RTC which is
produced at .< " J
3. The dispugeplliarosell some of the Villagers moved the
{3:ommissAioI1er…stating that the land in question is a
V’7,Gox}e1°=nn1ent:land–.used by the villagers and the same shall be
purpose of construction of a hospital. The
‘.Deputy..Corrimissioner has initiated proceedings under Section
it V’ “..j1.3A6{3},_read with Section 67(2) of the Act and has conducted an
After giving an opportunity to both the parties, he has
. ‘lg;/.,VV4V%rded a finding holding that the land in question was used
__ 4 IIIAALI
for public purpose. In the RTC, in Column No.12 (2), it was
mentioned as ‘Gramastara Hullu Koppa’ meaning ‘area meant
for hay stock’. He has also referred to the fact that of
the land out of 3 acres 12 guntas was demandedby
for construction to establish a hospita.l_andlvillagers’ .
had no objection for the sarneg 1’_”I<'urther;" :l_3Z)e1f,i,ity
Commissioner has also referred__t"e._the fact 'that"the._us.ufructs 'of'
the tamarind trees grown in the__said__1and vve1*e.:auct:loned every
year and the amount"…r'ec_eivecl' used for the
development of th.& temfiles. Based on these
materials, that as the land
in question individual and was
meant no impediment for treating it as
a Government available for the purpose of
putting' up construction to establish a hospital.
contention of the learned counsel for the
Ap'eti'done1'vl4lisp: the proceedings initiated by the Deputy
V _ Comrnissi_'onei–l"' are without authority of law as the same is
initiated "after a lapse of nearly 50 years from the date the
,en.t'1'ies"l were found in the name of the grandfather of the
netltioner and that the Deputy Commissioner had no right to
I. Met.
~ . ark a private land owned by a private individual for public
– 5 _
purpose to construct a hospital. Referring to RR755, based on
which the entries are effected, counsel for the petitioner submits
that without finding out the nature of the right
under RR755, the Deputy Commissioner could net
the impugned order. He has placed, rel.ianceon’ .
in the case of SHIVANNA vs. NARAYANA. – ’11.R”1_S§95VV1€l=L,RlVlAivO:00
and in the case of ANNA mo] ‘&_oTIn:«:Rs vs;”..vGeifiDARL«*DDY ‘sat’
OTHERS — mi 1997 KAR 1998 to contend that ait’er,suc_F: long lapse
of time, the Deputy Cominissione1f_’cou*ldvi have exercised his
powers under Section delete lltheyentries made in the
name of the grandfath_e1?.of
5. Learned. “Additional._C§overnn1ent Advocate has strongly
supported the the Depuw Commissioner, so
also the counse1’va.ppeari.ng« .fpr respondents 4 to 8.
iDn_._co:isideratisn«’of the entire materials on record, prima
“».rac.ie”, =1 -the revenue record produced by the petitioner
collectively Annexure~»B series that the name of
‘,Thimmego’-.2_vda under whom the petitioner claims is not entered
it ha.»-siigolwner of the property exclusively. Column No.9 of the RTC
’ementions the name of Thimmewowda and as aiso the Villagers
4 “vlgfill/persons who have right over the property. In the column
_ 6 IIIAAA
depicting the particulars of the actual cultivators right from the
year 1984-85 it is shown as ‘Gramastara Hullu Koppa’ meaning
‘area meant for hay stock of the villagers’. In the absence of any
material produced by the petitioner to show the e2<.cla,is«i.ife.Vvtitle
and ownership of Thimmegowda over the propertiyllirIl«'ques»tiong
and in the light of the findingsMregcorded'"by'_"
Commissioner, this Court in exercise :_'0f.g"£h€*,W1'i't' juri'sdii:1i;ion
cannot record a finding regarding the entitl'en1ent_.3of the
petitioner.
7. Counsel for the pe£1t:¢né1=.,i1as the fact that
the proceedings Could by the Deputy
Commissioner;lafteriifi-such~.long of time for a direction to
enter the ‘named ‘of~.gthef’–C}g:vernment deleting the private
individuals’ name.’
. .«.XsE”‘alre’ady referred to above, the records do not disclose
‘the of Thimmegowda in the property. The RTC
._ extracts the interest of Thimmegowda along With all the
lR””‘«._hvillagers ‘v…meaning thereby prima facie the property was
A earmarked for public use of the villagers. Based on the same, at
the request of some of the villagers, the Deputy Commissioner
«has found it just and reasonable to delete the name of
_ 7 4444
Thirnmegowda and of the villagers and to insert the name of the
Government. This action has been initiated in the background
of the request made by the villagers to make use of the property
for the purpose of constructing a hospital which
cater to the needs of the entire villagers. Thereforelll
application of the principle enunciated in.’the-aforesaid
decisions will not arise in the facts’,an+;l-circumstance:§».ofi~iéthis
case. If at all the petitioner intends tux lay,heruclyaimmoverthe’
property as one absolutely to her, is open to
her to approach the herright. In fact,
she has filed a suit in pending on the
file of the v–«w’herein the relief of
declarat;i,on_ ofVtitle._ ‘svoug t in respect of the very land.
Petitionerhas consequential relief of permanent
in_}’unQ,~;1011, In su_chV1 circumstances, it is appropriate that the
thewpetitioner before the Civil Court has to be
passed by the Deputy Commissioner, it is
needless to’oVb’serve, will be subject to the result of the civil suit.
rightlyfcontended by the learned Additional Government
A :yil:iv”acaA:~te even as per Section 67(2) of the Act, if any person is
“”.:,agglieved by such an order passed under Section 67, the
lies before the Civil Court to file a civil suit. Petitioner
\lflJll 8 ._
has rightly availed such a remedy though before passing the
order by the Deputy Commissioner. In the light of the same
without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to and
prosecute the said suit and keeping open all _t’ii–e
raised, this writ petition is dismissed;
9. In the light of the final
does not survive for consideration and the .same~fis””therefore
dismissed.
PKS