SMT LAKSHMI vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1284 OF 2018 (LR)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO. 976 OF 2018(LR),
WRIT APPEAL NO. 3220 OF 2018(LR),
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1750 OF 2019 (KLR-RES)
IN WA No. 1284/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. LAKSHMI,
W/O. SRI. V SUNDARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 18/2, (PART OF SY.NO. 134),
NEW BINNAMANGALA, INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 038.
2. MRS. NOOR AYESHA,
W/O. MR. ANEES,
D/O. MR. JANI,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 26, KRISHNAREDDY LAYOUT,
NANJAREDDY COLONY, HAL POST,
BANGALORE 560 038.
3. SRI. R MUNISWAMY,
S/O. LATE. RAJAGOPAL NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 18/1, (PART OF SY.NO. 134),
NEW BINNAMANGALA, INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 038.
Digitally
signed by
MALA K N
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
4. SMT. GEETHA,
W/O. SRI. R RAMACHANDRA,
AGED 60 YEARS,
5. SRI. SRINIVAS R
S/O. SRI. R RAMACHANDRA,
AGED 34 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT NO.16
(PART OF SY.NO. 134),
NEW BINNAMANGALA, INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 038.
6. SRI. J MURALI
S/O. LATE. D JAYARAM,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT NO.12/3, (PART OF SY.NO. 134),
NEW BINNAMANGALA, INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 038.
7. SMT. SAROJAMMA
W/O. LATE. V NARAYAN,
SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S
A. SMT.KRISHNAVENI
W/O K.L.HANUMANTHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
B. SMT.B.N.KAMALA
W/O KRISHAN MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
C. SMT.INDIRANI W/O MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
D.
SRI.B.N.MANJUNATH
S/O LATE V NARAYAN
SINCE DED BY LRS
SMT.MANJULA
W/O LATE B.N.MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
- 3 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
E. SRI.B.M.SAI KIRAN S/O B.N.MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
APPELLANTS NO.7A TO 7E ARE
R/AT NO.17, NEW BINNAMANGALA
OLD MADRAS ROAD, INDIRANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 038.
8. SRI. NAGARAJ S/O. SEENAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
9. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S/O. NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
10. SRI. CHANDRA S/O. NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
11. SRI. SHEKAR S/O NAGARA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
12. SMT. ROOPA D/O. NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.8 TO 12 ARE
ALL ARE R/AT NO.16/2, 16/3,
NEW BINNAMANGALA,
OLD MADRAS ROAD, INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 038.
13. SRI. NAWAB S/O. GHOUSE,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT NO.85,(PART OF SY.NO. 134),
NEW BINNAMANGALA, INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 038.
14. SRI. BABU S/O. LATE. MD.GHOUSE,
SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S,
A) MAHAMAD ISMAIL S/O BABU,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
NO.85, OLD MADRAS ROAD,
NEW BINNAMANGALA,BENGALURU-560 038.
- 4 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
15. SMT. NARAYANAMMA
W/O. LATE. ANNAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT NO.14, (PART OF SY.NO. 134),
NEW BINNAMANGALA, INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 038.
16. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMI
W/O. LATE. APPAYAPPA,
AGED 62 YEARS,
17. SRI. RAVI A
S/O. LATE. APPAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
APPELLANTS NO. 16 & 17 ARE R/AT NO.15,
NEW BINNAMANGALA, INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 038.
18. SRI. T SRIDHAR
S/O. LATE THAMMAIAH @ THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
19. SMT. T SARASWATI
D/O. LATE. THAMMAIAH @ THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
20. SMT. T CHANDRAMMA
D/O. LATE. THAMMAIAH @ THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
21. SRI. T RAMESH
S/O. LATE. THAMMAIAH @ THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
22. SRI. T VASU
S/O. LATE. THAMMAIAH @ THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
23. SMT. T NAGARATHNA
D/O. LATE. THAMMAIAH @ THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
- 5 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
24. SRI. T JANARDHANA
D/O. LATE. THAMMAIAH @ THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
25. SRI. T CHANDRASHEKARA
S/O. LATE. THAMMAIAH @ THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
APPELLANTS 18 TO 25 ARE
R/AT NO.17/1, (PART OF SY.NO. 134),
NEW BINNAMANGALA, INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 038.
26. SMT. SHANTHA SHANKAR
W/O. SRI. SHANKAR,
AGED 61 YEARS,
27. SRI. SUMITH SHANKAR
S/O. SRI. SHANKAR,
AGED 40 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.14,(PART OF SY.NO. 134),
NEW BINNAMANGALA, INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 038.
28. SMT. HASINA W/O. GAIBAN (LATE)
SINCE DECEASED BY L.R’S
(A) MAQTAR AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O GIBAN GHOUSE,
NO.19, OLD MADRAS ROAD,
NEW BINNAMANGALA,
BENGALURU-560 038.
29. SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O. SRI. KRISHNAPPA,
AGED 65 YEARS,
R/AT NO.OLD NO. 26, NEW 12/4,
NEW BINNAMANGALA,
OLD MADRAS ROAD,
BANGALORE 560 038
- 6 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
30. SMT. KRISHNAVENI
W/O. SRI. GOVINDARAJULU NAIDU,
AGED 62 YEARS,
R/AT 13/2, NEW BINNAMANGALA,
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 038.
(A) NARENDRA KUMAR.G,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
S/O GOVINDARAJ NAIDU,
NO.19, OLD MADRAS ROAD,
NEW BINNAMANGALA,
BENGALURU-560 038.
31. SRI. PRAKASH S/O. SRI. BALAKRISHNA,
AGED 44 YEARS,
32. SRI. SHANKAR S/O. BALAKRISHNA,
AGED 42 YEARS,
APPELLANTS NO.31 & 32 ARE
R/AT NO.22/1, NEW BINNAMANGALA,
OLD MADRAS ROAD, INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 038.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. P.S.RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. GIRISH B.T., ADVOCATE AND
SRI. R.RAVI, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT -1 & 3
(NOC OBTAINED);
V.C.O DATED 15.02.2022,
SRI. P.S.RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. S.V.BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT NO.2, 4 TO
6,7(A TO E), 8 TO 13, 14(A), 15 TO 27, 28(A), 29,
30(A), 31 & 32)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
MULTISTORIED BUILDING,
BANGALORE 560 001.
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KANDAYA BHAVANA, K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE 560 009.
- 7 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
3. SRI. R BALAKRISHNA
S/O. LATE. N. RAJU,
OCC : BUSINESS,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
4. SMT. SUJATHA
W/O. MR. R BALAKRISHNA,
OCC : HOUSEWORK,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
5. SRI. NUTHAN R BALAKRISHNA
S/O. MR. R BALAKRISHNA,
OCC : COMPANY EMPLOYEE,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
6. MS. B THUNGA
D/O. SRI. R BALAKRISHNA,
OCC : HOUSE WORK,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 6 ARE
R/AT NO.14/1, NEW BINNAMANGALA,
OLD MADRAS ROAD, BANGALORE 560 038.
7.
SMT. M. P. GANGAMMA @ PAPAMMA,
W/O. LATE. M MUNIRAJU,
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS,
SRI. M RAVIKUMAR,
S/O LATE. M MUNIRAJU,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
TH RD
R/AT NO. 30, 8 CROSS, 3 MAIN,
SRI. M R NAGAR, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR,
DOORAVANI NAGAR POST,
BANGALORE 560 038.
8. SRI. M.R. CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O. LATE. M MUNIRAJU,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
9. SRI. M.R. MURALIDHAR
S/O. LATE. M MUNIRAJU,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
- 8 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
RESPONDENTS NO.8 TO 9 ARE
R/AT NO.19/3,NEW BINNAMANGALA,
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 038.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.N.BYREGOWDA, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI.P.B.RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R6;
SRI.DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.M.A.APPAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R7 TO R9)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO I) SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.48024/2014 DATED
15/02/2018 AND CONSEQUENTLY AND II) SET ASIDE THE
ND
ORDER OF THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-2
RESPONDENT PASSED IN CASE NO.INA.CR.13/1998-99 DATED
12/07/1999 AND ETC.,
IN WA NO. 976/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. R BALAKRISHNA
S/O LATE SRI N RAJU @ RAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
OCC:BUSINESS,
R/A NO.14/1, NEW BINNAMANGALA,
OLD MADRAS ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 038.
(NOTE:BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED)
2. MRS. SUJATHA,
W/O SRI R BALAKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
OCC:HOUSE WORK,
3. MR. NUTHAN R BALAKRISHNA,
S/O SRI R BALAKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
OCCUPATION:COMPANY EMPLOYEE,
4. MS B THUNGA @ RUKMINI,
D/O SRI R BALAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
- 9 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE
R/A NO.14/1, NEW BINNAMANGALA,
OLD MADRAS ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 038.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. P.S.RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. P.B.RAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. M P GANGAMMA @ PAPAMMA
W/O LATE SRI M MUNIRAJU
RESPONDENT NO.1 IS
DEAD BY HER LRS ALREADY ON RECORD AS
PETITIONER-2 TO 4
1. SRI.M. RAVIKUMAR
S/O LATE SRI.M. MUNIRAJU,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RD TH
R/AT NO.30, 3 MAIN, 8 CROSS,
SIR M.R. NAGAR,
RAMAMURTHY NAGAR,
DOORAVANI NAGAR POST,
BANGALORE-560 038.
2. SRI. M R CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O LATE SRI M MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
4. SRI. M R MURALIDHAR,
S/O LATE SRI M MUNIRAJU,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.2 & 3 ARE
R/A NO.19/3, NEW BINNAMANGALA,
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 038.
5. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M S BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
- 10 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
6. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KANDAYA BHAVANA, K G ROAD,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
BANGALORE-560 009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.M.A.APPAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI.N.BYREGOWDA, AGA FOR R4 & R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW ABOVE WRIT APPEAL
AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT/ORDERS DATED
15/02/2018, PASSED IN WP NO.48024/2014 [LR-RES],
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT, AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS, WITH COSTS.
IN WA NO. 3220/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. B R CHANDRAPPA,
S/O LATE RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
TH
NO.570/A, 17 CROSS,
ND
INDIRANAGAR 2 CROSS,
BANGALORE-560 032.
2. SRI. R RAMU S/O LATE RAMAIAH,
AGED 68 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.14/1,
NEW BINNAMANGALA,
OLD MADRAS ROAD,
INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 032.
3. SRI R LAKSHMAN S/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED 66 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.14/1,
NEW BINNAMANGALA,
OLD MADRAS ROAD,
INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 032.
- 11 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
4. SRI R VASU S/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.14/1,
NEW BINNAMANGALA,
OLD MADRAS ROAD,
INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 032.
5. SRI. R RAMAKRISHNA,
S/O LATE RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.16,
NEW BINNAMANGALA,
OLD MADRAS ROAD, INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 032.
6. SRI T LAKSHKMAIAH
S/O.LATE THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
TH
NO.564, 17 CROSS,
ND
INDIRANAGAR, 2 STAGE,
BANGALORE-560 038.
7. SRI J PRABHAKAR
S/O.LATE B.R.JAIRAM,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
TH
NO.514, 16 CROSS,
ND
INDIRANAGAR, 2 STAGE,
BANGALORE-560 038.
(A1 TO A6 SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED)
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. P.S.RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. S.V.BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPT.,
M. S. BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE 560 001
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
BANGALORE CITY
- 12 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DISTRICT
BANGALORE-560 001.
3. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 001.
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560001.
5.
5A.
SRI VENKAT RAJU
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS,
NAGAMMA, W/O LATE VENKATA RAJU,
AGED 78 YEARS,
R/AT NO.19/3,
BINNAMANGALA VILLAGE,
INDIRNAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 038.
5B. MARAMMA D/O LATE VENKATA RAJ
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT NO.19/3
BINNAMANGALA VILLAGE
INDIRANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 038
5C. DODDAMARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O LATE VENKATA RAJU
R/AT NO.19/3, BINNAMANGALA VILLAGE
INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 038
5D. CHIKKAMARAPPA
S/O LATE VENKATA RAJU
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT NO.19/3, BINNAMANGALA VILLAGE
INDIRANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 038
- 13 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
5E. RAJESH S/O LATE VENKATA RAJU
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT NO.19/3
BINNAMANGALA VILLAGE
INDIRANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 038
5F. MAHADEVI D/O LATE VENKATA RAJU
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT NO.19/3
BINNAMANGALA VILLAGE
INDIRANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 038
5G. BOJARAJU D/O LATE VENKATA RAJU
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT NO.19/3
BINNAMANGALA VILLAGE
INDIRANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 038
5H. UMESH S/O LATE VENKATA RAJU
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT NO.19/3
BINNAMANGALA VILLAGE
INDIRANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 038
5I. SRINIVASA S/O LATE VENKATA RAJU
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT NO.19/3
BINNAMANGALA VILLAGE
INDIRANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 038
5J. SRINIVASA S/O LATE VENKATA RAJU
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT NO.19/3
BINNAMANGALA VILLAGE
INDIRANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 038
- 14 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
5K. NAGARAJU
S/O LATE VENKATA RAJU
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT NO.19/3
BINNAMANGALA VILLAGE
INDIRANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 038
5L. SAMPATH
S/O LATE VENKATA RAJU
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT NO.19/3
BINNAMANGALA VILLAGE
INDIRANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 038.
5M. MURTHY S/O LATE VENKATA RAJU
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT NO.19/3
BINNAMANGALA VILLAGE
INDIRANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 038
5N. GANESH S/O LATE VENKATA RAJU
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT NO.19/3
BINNAMANGALA VILLAGE
INDIRANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 038
5O. VENKATAMMA
W/O LATE VENKATA RAJU
AGED MAJOR
R/A DINNUR VILLAGE
BEHIND KADUGODI POLICE STATION
BANGALORE-560 067.
5P. NARASIMHAMURTHY
S/O LATE VENKATA RAJU
AGED MAJOR
R/A DINNUR VILLAGE
BEHIND KADUGODI POLICE STATION
BANGALORE-560 067.
- 15 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
5Q. LAKSHMI
D/O LATE VENKATA RAJU
AGED MAJOR
R/A NO.19/3
BINNAMANGALA VILLAGE
INDIRANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 038
5R. RADHA
D/O LATE VENKATA RAJU
AGED MAJOR
R/A NO.19/3
BINNAMANGALA VILLAGE
INDIRANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 038
5S. RATHNA
D/O LATE VENKATA RAJU
AGED MAJOR
R/A NO.19/3
BINNAMANGALA VILLAGE
INDIRANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 038
6.
6A.
SRI MUNIRAJU MAJOR
S/O LATE MARAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
GANGAMMA
W/O LATE MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT NO.19/3
BINNAMANGALA VILLAGE
INDIRANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 038
6B. RAVI KUMAR
S/O LATE MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO.19/3
BINNAMANGALA VILLAGE
INDIRANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 038
- 16 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
6C. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE MUNIRAJU
R/AT NO.19/3, BINNAMANGALA VILLAGE
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 038
6D. MURALI S/O LATE MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT NO.19/3, BINNAMANGALA VILLAGE
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 038
7. SRI.B.M. BYRAPPA S/O B. MUNISWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 91 YEARS,
R/AT NO.24, NEW BINNAMANGALA,
OLD MADRAS ROAD,
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 032.
8. SRI B C N PRAKASH
DEAD BY HIS LR
SMT. ARUNA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.23, NEW BINNAMANGALA,
OLD MADRAS ROAD, INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 038.
9. SRI Y V PRASAD S/O.LATE Y DASANNA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
ST ST
NO.55, 1 CROSS, 1 MAIN,
ST
INDIRANAGAR, 1 STAGE,
BANGALORE-560 038.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.N.BYREGOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI.P.B.AJITH, ADVOCATE FOR R7(A),
SRI.DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.M.A.APPAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R6(B-D);
R5(O),R8,R9 ARE SERVED;
SRI.K.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE AND
SRI.K.LOKESH, ADVOCATE FOR R5(A,B,E & H,K TO N &
P-S)
SINCE R5(I & J) ARE DEAD AS PER POSTAL SHARA IN
UNSERVED COVER);
(VK NOT FILED IN R/O R5(C & D); V.C.O DATED
01/06/23, NOTICE TO R6(A) IS DISPENSED WITH)
- 17 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO A)SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NOS.57024-57027/2014
DATED 02/02/2018 AND B) SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE
ND
SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER - 2 RESPONDENT
PASSED IN CASE NO.INA.CR.13/1998-99 DATED 12/07/1999
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B IN WP AND ETC.,
IN WA NO. 1750/2019:
BETWEEN:
1.
MR. BYRAPPA,
S/O MUNISWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS,
DEMISED ON 26.01.2018,
REPRESENTED BY HIS SOLE LEGAL HEIR,
MR. SAMPATH KUMAR,
S/O LATE B.M.BYRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.24, NEW BINMANAGALA
OLD MADRAS ROAD, INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 032.
SINCE DECEASED LEGAL HEIRS ARE
BROUGHT ON RECORD
AS PER ORDER DATED 29.11.2024
1(A) MRS. VINUTHA W/O LATE SAMPATH KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
1(B) MR. ASHISH.S,
S/O LATE SAMPATH KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.24, NEW BINMANAGALA
OLD MADRAS ROAD, INDIRANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 032.
2. MR. B.C.N.PRAKASH
S/O LATE B.M.CHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS
- 18 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
MRS.ARUNA
W/O B.C.N.PRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.23,
NEW BINMANAGALA, OLD MADRAS ROAD,
INDIRANAGAR.
3. MR Y.V.PRASAD
S/O LATE Y.DASANNA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
ST ST
RESIDING AT NO.55, 1 CROSS, 1 MAIN,
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 038.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. P.S.RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.AJIT.P.B.,ADVOCATE FOR LR’S DECEASED APPELLANTS)
AND:
1. THE SATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
MULTI STORIED BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEEDHI,
BANGALORE 560 001,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DISTRICT URBAN,
BANGALORE 560 001.
3. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE 560 001,
REP BY ITS SECRETARY.
4. THE THASILDHAR
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE 560 001.
MR VENKATA RAJU
SINCE DECEASED
REPRESENTED BY HIS
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE,
- 19 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
5. MRS.NAGAMMA,W/O LATE VENKATA RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
6. MRS. MARAMMA
D/O LATE VENKATA RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
7. MR .DODDAMARAPPA
S/O LATE VENKATA RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
8. MR.CHIKKAMARAPPA
S/O LATE VENKATA RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
9. MR RAJESH
S/O LATE VENKATA RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
10. MRS. MAHADEVI
D/O LATE VENKATA RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
11. MR. BOJA RAJU
S/O LATE VENKATA RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
12. MR. UMESH
S/O LATE VENKATA RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
13. MR SRINIVASA
S/O LATE VENKATA RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
14. MR. SRINIVASA
S/O LATE VENKATA RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
15. MR. NAGARAJU,
S/O LATE VENKATA RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
- 20 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
16. MR. SAMPATH
S/O LATE VENKATA RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
17. MR. MURTHY,
S/O LATE VENKATA RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
18. MR. GANESH,
S/O LATE VENKATA RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 18 ARE
R/O NO.19/3, BINMANGALA VILLAGE,
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 038.
19. MRS. VENKATAMMA
W/O LATE VENKATA RAJU,
AGED MAJOR,
20. MR. NARASIMMURTHY
S/O LATE VENKATA RAJU,
AGED MAJOR,
RESPONDENTS NO.19 & 20 ARE
RESIDING AT DINNUR VILLAGE,
BEHIND KADUGODI POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE 560 067.
21. MRS. LAKSHMI,
D/O LATE VENKATA RAJU,
AGED MAJOR,
22. MRS. RADHA
D/O LATE VENKATA RAJU,
AGED MAJOR,
23. MRS RATHNA
D/O LATE VENKATA RAJU,
AGED MAJOR,
RESPONDENTS NO.21 TO 23 ARE
RESIDENTS OF NO.19/3, BINMANAGALA VILLAGE,
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 038.
- 21 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
24.
MR. MUNIRAJAU S/O LATE MARAPPA,
SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
MRS. GANGAMMA
W/O LATE MUNIRAJU,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
25. MR. RAVI KUMAR
S/O LATE MUNIRAJU,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
26. MR. CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O LATE MUNIRAJU,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
27. MR. MURALI
S/O LATE MUNIRAJU,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NO.24 TO 27 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.19/3,
BINMANAGALA VILLAGE, INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 038.
28. MR B.R.SCHANDRAPPA
S/O LATE RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
TH
RESIDING AT NO.570/A, 17 CROSS,
ND
INDIRANAGAR 2 CROSS,
BANGALORE 560 038.
29. MR R.RAMU S/O LATE RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.14/1,
NEW BINNAMANAGALA, OLD MADRAS ROAD,
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 038.
30. MR. R LAKSHMAN S/O LATE RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.14/1, NEW BINNAMANGALA,
OLD MADRAS ROAD, INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 038.
- 22 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
31. MR. R VASU S/O LATE RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.14/1, NEW BINNAMANGALA,
OLD MADRAS ROAD, INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 038.
32. MR. R.RAMAKRISHNA S/O LATE RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.14/1, NEW BINNAMANGALA,
OLD MADRAS ROAD, INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 038.
33. MR. T LAKSHMAIAH S/O LATE RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
TH
NO.564, 17 CROSS,
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 038.
34. MR. J.PRABHAKAR,
S/O LATE B.R.JAIRAM,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
TH
RESIDING AT NO.514, 16 CROSS,
ND
INDIRANAGAR 2 STAGE,
BENGALURU -560 038.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.N.BYREGOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI.S.V.BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R28 TO R34;
SRI.K.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE AND
SRI.K.LOKESH, ADVOCATE FOR R5, R6,R9 TO R12,
R15 TO R18 & R20 TO R23;
SRI.DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.M.A.APPAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R25 TO R27;
R7 & R19 ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 02/02/2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WP NO.57024-
57027/2014 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT
PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
07/11/2014. PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO.1167/2003 AS PER ANNEXURE-A
ND
AND ORDER DATED 12/07/1999 PASSED BY THE 2
RESPONDENT IN PROCEEDINGS NO.INA.CR.13/1997-98 AS
PER ANNEXURE-B TO THE WRIT PETITION.
- 23 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 27.08.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)
The appellants in all these four connected writ appeals
are long-standing occupants, site purchasers, and homeowners
claiming independent title over residential structures built in
Survey No.134. The respondents are primarily the State of
Karnataka, its revenue authorities including the Special Deputy
Commissioner, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, and the legal
representatives of competing claimants (Late Venkataraju and
Late M. Muniraju) in whose favour occupancy rights were
granted.
2. Before embarking upon narration of facts, we deem
it appropriate to notice the protagonists in each of the appeals.
Writ Appeal No. 1284 of 2018 is filed by Smt. Lakshmi and five
others challenging the order dated 15.02.2018 passed in Writ
Petition No.48024 of 2014, wherein the primary respondents
- 24 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
are the State of Karnataka and the legal representatives of Late
M. Muniraju; Writ Appeal No. 976 of 2018 is filed by Sri R.
Balakrishna and his family members, also challenging the order
dated 15.02.2018 in Writ Petition No. 48024 of 2014, with the
legal representatives of Late M. Muniraju arrayed as respondent
Nos. 1 to 4; Writ Appeal No. 3220 of 2018 is filed by Sri B.R.
Chandrappa and five others challenging the common order
dated 02.02.2018 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 57024–57027 of
2014, where respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are the State of
Karnataka, the Special Deputy Commissioner, and the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal; and Writ Appeal No. 1750 of
2021 (WA 1750–1751 of 2019) is filed by Sri B.M. Byrappa
(now demised, represented by his legal heir Sri B. Sampath
Kumar) and three others, likewise challenging the order dated
02.02.2018 in Writ Petition Nos. 57024–57027 of 2014.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: - The land
bearing Survey No. 134 (along with adjoining Survey Nos. 130,
131, 135, and 136) situated at Kayamgutta Binnamangala
Village (presently Indiranagar, Bengaluru) forms the fulcrum of
the lis. The entire village vested in the State Government under
the provisions of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous)
- 25 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
Inams Abolition Act, 1954, pursuant to an official notification
dated 07.07.1958 (effective date of vesting 15.07.1958). While
the appellants assert pre-existing title and long-standing
possession over constructed house sites under registered deeds
dating back to 1929, 1939, and 1940 protected under Sections
9 and 12 of the 1954 Act, rival claims were lodged by the legal
heirs of Bodappa (Venkataraju and Muniraju) relying upon a
1902 permanent lease deed and a 1949 Will. This led to a
series of administrative grant orders, tribunal remands, and
writ petitions spanning several decades. The controversy arises
from interconnected orders passed by the Special Deputy
Commissioner on 12.07.1999 and subsequent rulings by the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and the Learned Single Judge.
WA No 1284/2018
4. Facts of the Petitioners
4.1. The appellants claim to be the owners in possession
of residential houses and house sites formed in Sy.No.134 of
Binnamangala Village, Bengaluru North Taluk, now falling
within the limits of Bengaluru City. They state that their
respective properties, bearing different municipal numbers,
- 26 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
were acquired under registered sale deeds and that they have
been residing therein for several decades. According to them,
the houses and structures were constructed after obtaining the
necessary plans and licences from the competent authorities.
They rely upon the encumbrance certificate reflecting
transactions relating to the properties from 1940 onwards and
contend that they are in settled possession of their respective
portions of the land.
4.2. The dispute has its origin in an application dated
04.12.1959 submitted by seven persons, including late
Muniraju and Ramaraju, seeking occupancy rights in respect of
Sy.Nos.130, 134 and 135 of Binnamangala Village, claiming a
total extent of three acres. The appellants contend that the
application did not include Sy.No.131 and that the applicants
claimed joint possession of the lands specified therein. Earlier,
the claim of Doddamarappa, father of late Muniraju and
Ramaraju's family members, and other claimants had been
considered in proceedings bearing No.A1.O.R. 16/64-65,
culminating in an order dated 25.03.1978. The said order,
according to the appellants, had rejected the claim of
- 27 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
Doddamarappa in respect of Sy.No.134, while granting
occupancy rights in respect of certain other lands.
4.3. Late Muniraju and Ramaraju thereafter approached
this Court in W.P.No.7950/1997, seeking a direction to the
competent authorities to consider their application dated
04.12.1959. The writ petition was allowed with a direction to
consider the application in accordance with law. Pursuant
thereto, proceedings were initiated before the Special Deputy
Commissioner in Case No.INA/CR/13/1997-1998. By order
dated 23.02.1998, the Special Deputy Commissioner granted
occupancy rights in respect of the lands in question in favour of
the applicants. The appellants contend that the said order was
passed without notice to them, though they were occupying the
properties and had constructed houses thereon. They further
dispute the reliance placed upon a lease deed dated
05.07.1902 and an alleged Will dated 01.09.1949, contending
that the documents did not support the extent of land granted
under the order.
4.4. Aggrieved by the order of the Special Deputy
Commissioner, several occupants approached this Court in
W.P.Nos.7315–7330/2000, where they were relegated to the
- 28 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
alternative remedy of appeal under Section 28 of the Mysore
(Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954.
Thereafter, proceedings were pursued before the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal, including Appeal No.1315/2003 and the
subsequent W.P.No.50708/2004. In the meantime,
respondents 3 to 6 filed Appeal No.967/2013 before the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal challenging the order of Special
Deputy Commissioner dated 12.07.1999, and the Tribunal, by
its judgment dated 01.10.2014, set aside the order of the
Special Deputy Commissioner and remanded the matter for
fresh consideration. The appellants also refer to
W.A.No.6427/2013 and connected appeals, as well as the
review proceedings in R.P.No.236/2015 and R.P.Nos.686–
690/2015, in support of their contention that the earlier
proceedings had a bearing upon their rights. They state that
they were not parties to the subsequent writ petition filed by
the legal representatives of Muniraju in W.P.No.48024/2014,
though the order passed therein directly affected their
possession and interest in the property.
- 29 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
5. Order passed in the writ petition:
5.1. The legal representatives of late Muniraju
challenged the judgment dated 01.10.2014 passed by the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.967/2013 by filing
W.P.No.48024/2014. By order dated 15.02.2018, the learned
Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of
the Tribunal. While considering the matter, the writ court
noticed the earlier proceedings concerning the same dispute,
including Appeal No.272/1979 before the Karnataka Appellate
Tribunal, W.P.No.38894/2001, W.A.No.7574/2001 and the
subsequent proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
SLP (C) No.5258/2002. The writ court observed that the order
of the Special Deputy Commissioner in the relevant
proceedings had been affirmed in earlier rounds of litigation
and, on that basis, interfered with the Tribunal's judgment.
5.2. The appellants contend that the order passed in
W.P.No.48024/2014 was made without their being impleaded,
notwithstanding their claim of long-standing possession over
the properties in Sy.No.134. According to them, the writ court
proceeded on the basis of earlier decisions without appreciating
the distinct nature of their claim, the effect of the order passed
- 30 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.967/2013 and
the intervening proceedings in which the order of the Special
Deputy Commissioner had been set aside. It is in these
circumstances that the appellants have preferred the present
writ appeal, seeking to set aside the order dated 15.02.2018
passed in W.P.No.48024/2014.
6. Grounds raised in the writ appeal:
6.1. The appellants contend that the writ court failed to
appreciate that they are occupants of residential houses and
house sites situated in Sy.No.134 of Binnamangala Village and
that their possession is supported by registered sale deeds,
municipal records and the existence of structures for several
decades. They submit that the order granting occupancy rights
in favour of the legal representatives of Muniraju directly
affects their existing rights and interests, though they were not
parties to the writ proceedings. The appellants maintain that
the order could not have been sustained without considering
the effect of their possession and the earlier proceedings
relating to the same land.
6.2. It is further urged that the writ court failed to take
note of the judgment dated 01.10.2014 passed by the
- 31 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.967/2013, whereby
the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner dated
12.07.1999 in INA/CR/13/1997-1998 had been set aside and
the matter remanded for fresh consideration. According to the
appellants, the subsequent order in W.P.No.48024/2014,
restoring the benefit of the order passed by the Special Deputy
Commissioner, has the effect of defeating the consequences of
the Tribunal's decision and prejudicing the appellants, who had
not been afforded an effective opportunity to contest the claim
for occupancy rights.
6.3. The appellants also contend that the writ court
erred in relying upon the observations made in
W.P.No.51948/2017 and other proceedings without examining
whether the facts and issues involved therein were identical to
those arising in the present case. They submit that the earlier
proceedings relied upon different parties, transactions and
claims and could not have been applied mechanically to
determine the rights of the parties in respect of the property in
dispute. It is their specific grievance that the material
circumstances relating to their occupation, the nature of the
- 32 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
structures and the effect of the proceedings before the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal were not properly considered.
6.4. It is further contended that material facts
concerning the filing and pendency of W.P.No.48024/2014 and
the order passed in Appeal No.967/2013 were not properly
brought to the notice of the Court in the connected
proceedings. The appellants submit that the earlier writ appeal
proceedings, including W.A.No.6427/2013 and the connected
appeals, had a bearing upon the remedy available to them and
that the subsequent order has deprived them of an effective
opportunity to establish their case before the competent
authority. They also raise a grievance regarding the service of
notice upon the parties to Appeal No.967/2013 in the writ
proceedings.
6.5. Lastly, the appellants contend that the impugned
order is contrary to the provisions of the Mysore (Personal and
Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, and the settled
principles governing adjudication of occupancy rights. They
seek setting aside of the order dated 15.02.2018 passed in
W.P.No.48024/2014 and consequential relief in respect of the
order of the Special Deputy Commissioner dated 12.07.1999.
- 33 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
They accordingly pray that the writ appeal be allowed, the
impugned order be set aside and the rights of the parties be
considered in accordance with law.
WA NO 976/2018
7. Facts of the petitioner:
7.1. The appellants, Sri R.Balakrishna and his family
members, claim ownership of 3 residential properties situated
in Sy.No.134 of Binnamangala Village, presently New
Binnamangala, Bengaluru. Their claims are founded upon
registered sale deeds and subsequent conveyances, including
the sale deed dated 22.06.1929 in respect of schedule item
no.1, the sale deed dated 12.08.1955 in respect of schedule
item no.2 and the sale deed dated 05.05.1939 in respect of
schedule item no.3. They contend that the properties were
acquired and residential buildings were in existence even prior
to the vesting of the inam lands under the Mysore (Personal
and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, and that the
properties so held by them could not have been included in the
grant of occupancy rights in favour of the rival claimants
without examining their claim under the provisions of the Act.
- 34 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
7.2. The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore
District, by order dated 12.07.1999 in INA/CR/13/1997-1998,
granted occupancy rights in favour of Venkataraju and Muniraju
in respect of the lands in question. The appellants contend that
the said order came to be passed without notice to them,
though their claim related to properties situated in the same
survey number. They rely upon the earlier proceedings,
including W.P. No. 34596/1999, in which they claim to have
obtained liberty to challenge the order before the competent
appellate forum. They thereafter pursued the matter before the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 967/2013,
challenging the grant made by the Special Deputy
Commissioner.
7.3. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, by order dated
01.10.2014, allowed Appeal No. 967/2013, set aside the order
dated 12.07.1999 passed in INA/CR/13/1997-1998 and
remanded the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with
law. The legal representatives of Muniraju thereafter challenged
the Tribunal's order in W.P. No. 48024/2014. The appellants
contend that the dispute before the Tribunal concerned the
entitlement of persons claiming pre-existing residential
- 35 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
buildings and the applicability of the relevant provisions of the
Inams Abolition Act, and their claim required consideration on
its own merits, notwithstanding the earlier proceedings
concerning the occupancy rights of the rival claimants.
7.4. In opposing the interlocutory application seeking
interim relief in the present appeal, respondent Nos. 2 to 4
contend that the appellants have not established any subsisting
right warranting suspension of the order passed by the writ
court. They rely upon the notification dated 07.07.1958
concerning vesting of the inam lands and contend that the
lands vested in the State Government free from encumbrances,
rendering the sale deeds relied upon by the appellants
insufficient to establish title. They also refer to the earlier
proceedings, including W.A. No. 1103/2001, W.A. No.
655/2002, W.A. No. 7574/2001, SLP No. 6987/2002 and SLP
No. 5258/2002, and contend that the grant of occupancy rights
has been sustained in the earlier litigation. According to them,
the remand ordered by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal did
not confer any final right upon the appellants and the
application for stay is liable to be rejected.
- 36 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
8. Order passed in the writ petition:
8.1. The writ petition filed by the legal representatives
of Muniraju in W.P. No. 48024/2014 came to be allowed by
order dated 15.02.2018. The writ court set aside the order
passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.
967/2013, thereby setting aside the order of remand of the
matter for fresh consideration by the Special Deputy
Commissioner. The appellants contend that, the writ court
proceeded on the basis of the earlier proceedings concerning
the grant of occupancy rights and the findings recorded therein.
8.2. The appellants contend that the order dated
15.02.2018 was passed without affording them an effective
opportunity of hearing and without examining the specific issue
raised by them regarding the residential buildings claimed to
have existed before vesting. They further contend that the writ
court was not apprised of the full effect of the earlier
proceedings, including the liberty granted in W.P. No.
50708/2004 and the subsequent proceedings before the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. Aggrieved by the order, they
have preferred the present writ appeal.
- 37 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
9. Grounds raised in the writ appeal:
9.1. The appellants contend that the writ court
committed an error in setting aside the order of the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal without adequately examining the nature of
their claim and the evidence placed before the Tribunal.
According to them, Appeal No.967/2013 was preferred
pursuant to the liberty granted in the earlier writ proceedings,
and the Tribunal, after considering the rival claims, had
remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The appellants
submit that such remand ought not to have been interfered
with without considering the issues which the Tribunal had
directed the competent authority to examine.
9.2. It is further contended that the writ court failed to
consider whether the residential buildings claimed by the
appellants, allegedly in existence prior to the date of vesting,
were required to be examined independently under the relevant
provisions of the Inams Abolition Act. Their case is that the
mere fact that the lands formed part of an inam village could
not conclude the separate question relating to the buildings and
the rights claimed in respect thereof. They rely upon their title
documents and other records to contend that the nature and
- 38 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
extent of their possession required adjudication by the
competent authority.
9.3. The appellants also contend that the earlier
proceedings, including W.P.No.50708/2004 and the subsequent
proceedings in W.A.No.6427/2013 and connected appeals, were
not properly considered while setting aside the Tribunal's order.
They submit that the liberty granted in the earlier proceedings
enabled them to pursue the remedy before the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal and that the issue concerning their
properties required consideration on the evidence available on
record. According to them, the order passed by the writ court
has the effect of denying such consideration without
adjudication of the specific claim raised by them.
9.4. Another ground urged by the appellants is that
they were not afforded an effective opportunity of hearing in
W.P. No. 48024/2014, though the order passed therein directly
affected their claim to the schedule properties. They contend
that the writ court ought to have examined whether the
appellants were necessary parties to the proceedings and
whether the order of the Tribunal could have been set aside
without hearing them on the question of their alleged pre-
- 39 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
existing rights. They further dispute the respondents'
contention that the earlier proceedings concerning occupancy
rights conclude the separate issue raised by them.
9.5. The appellants accordingly seek setting aside of the
order dated 15.02.2018 passed in W.P. No. 48024/2014 and
restoration of the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate
Tribunal in Appeal No. 967/2013, remanding the matter for
fresh consideration. They contend that unless the order of the
writ court is interfered with, their claim concerning the
residential properties and the buildings alleged to have existed
before vesting would remain unexamined. In the interlocutory
application, they have also sought interim protection against
dispossession and interference with their possession pending
disposal of the writ appeal.
WA NO 3220/2018
10. Facts of the petitioner:
10.1. The appellants, Sri B.R. Chandrappa and six others,
claim to be in possession of houses and house sites bearing
Corporation Nos. 12, 14, 14/2, 16 and 23, situated in Survey
No.134 of Binnamangala Village, Bengaluru North Taluk. Their
- 40 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
case is that the properties had been converted into house sites
and buildings had been put up much before the Mysore
(Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 came
into force. They rely upon registered conveyances, municipal
khatha entries and tax-paid receipts to substantiate their
possession and claim over the respective portions.
10.2. On 04.12.1959, late Muniraju and Ramaraju,
along with others, made an application claiming joint rights
over lands in Survey Nos.130, 134 and 135 of Binnamangala
Village. The Special Deputy Commissioner, by order dated
02.01.1962, rejected the claims of persons occupying portions
of Survey No.134 as house sites and buildings, observing that
adjudication of rights over buildings and lands put to non-
agricultural use was outside his jurisdiction under the Inams
Abolition Act. The appellants rely upon this order as having
attained finality. They further refer to the order dated
25.03.1978, by which the claim of Doddamarappa in respect of
Survey No.134 was rejected on the ground that the land was
not covered by the lease deed relied upon.
10.3. Late Muniraju and Ramaraju thereafter filed W.P.
No.7950/1997 seeking a direction to the authorities to consider
- 41 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
their pending application. The writ petition was allowed on
24.10.1997. Pursuant thereto, proceedings were taken up in
INA.CR. No.13/1997-98, and the Special Deputy Commissioner,
by order dated 12.07.1999, granted occupancy rights in respect
of Survey Nos.130, 131 and 134, measuring 4 acres and 20
guntas, in favour of Muniraju and Ramaraju. The appellants
contend that the order was passed without notice to them,
though they were in possession of portions of Survey No.134
and had put up buildings thereon.
10.4. The appellants and other occupants challenged
the order dated 12.07.1999. W.P. Nos.7315–7330/2000 were
disposed of on 16.09.2003, leaving it open to pursue the
statutory remedy. Appeal No.735/2003 before the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal was dismissed on 30.09.2004. Some of the
occupants thereafter filed W.P. No.50708/2004, which was
disposed of on 06.09.2013 with a direction to approach the
Tribunal. Meanwhile, the appellants’ relatives and other
affected persons pursued Appeal No.967/2013 before the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. By order dated 01.10.2014, the
Tribunal set aside the Special Deputy Commissioner’s order and
remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The appellants
- 42 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
also refer to W.A. No.6427/2013 and connected proceedings,
including review petitions dismissed on 09.08.2016.
11. Order passed in the writ petition:
11.1. W.P. Nos.57024–57027/2014 were filed
challenging the order dated 01.10.2014 passed by the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.1167/2013 and
connected appeals, concerning the grant of occupancy rights in
Survey No.134 of Binnamangala Village. By order dated
02.02.2018, the writ court dismissed the writ petitions, relying
upon the earlier decisions in W.P. No.4300/2001, affirmed in
W.A. No.1103/2004, and W.P. No.988/2002, affirmed in W.A.
No.655/2002 and SLP (Civil) No.6987/2002.
11.2. The appellants contend that the writ court did not
independently examine their pleadings and documents or
consider the effect of the earlier order dated 02.01.1962
passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner. According to
them, the earlier cases relied upon by the writ court concerned
subsequent purchasers, whereas their claim is founded on long-
standing occupation of the properties and the existence of
buildings prior to the vesting of the land. Aggrieved by the
- 43 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
order dated 02.02.2018, they have preferred the present writ
appeal.
12. Grounds raised in the writ appeal:
12.1. The appellants contend that the writ court erred in
dismissing the writ petitions without examining the material
facts and documents produced by them. Their specific case is
that the order dated 02.01.1962 had already rejected claims
relating to built-up portions of Survey No.134 on the ground
that the land was urban and non-agricultural and that the
Special Deputy Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to grant
occupancy rights over such portions. According to them, that
order had attained finality and its effect was not considered
while examining the subsequent grant dated 12.07.1999.
12.2. It is further urged that the decisions in W.P.
No.4300/2001 and W.P. No.988/2002, and the subsequent
appeals arising therefrom, could not have been applied
mechanically to the appellants’ case. They submit that those
proceedings arose at the instance of subsequent purchasers
claiming through vendors, whereas the present appellants claim
to have been occupying and residing in their respective houses
- 44 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
and sites for several decades. The distinction, according to
them, required consideration before dismissing their challenge
to the Tribunal’s order.
12.3. The appellants also rely upon the proceedings in
W.P. No.50708/2004 and W.A. No.6427/2013 and connected
appeals. They contend that the directions issued in those
proceedings permitted the affected occupants to pursue their
remedies and produce documents showing that structures
existed before vesting. However, the order of the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal dated 01.10.2014 in Appeal No.967/2013
had set aside the Special Deputy Commissioner’s order and
remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The appellants
state that the subsequent dismissal of their writ petitions has
placed them in a position where they are unable to secure
consideration of their claim on its merits.
12.4. Another ground urged is that the authorities could
not have granted occupancy rights in respect of Survey No.134
without issuing notice to persons who claim to have been in
possession of the built-up portions. They rely on their
registered documents, municipal records, khatha certificates
and tax-paid receipts, and contend that their possession and
- 45 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
the nature of the properties required examination before any
order affecting their interests was passed.
12.5. On these grounds, the appellants seek setting
aside of the order dated 02.02.2018 passed in W.P.
Nos.57024–57027/2014 and a reconsideration of their
challenge to the grant of occupancy rights in Survey No.134 of
Binnamangala Village, with due regard to the earlier
proceedings and the documents relied upon by them.
WA NO 1750/2019
13. Facts of the petitioner:
13.1. The appellants, Byrappa and others, claim
ownership and possession of residential properties situated in
Survey No.134 of Binnamangala Village, Bengaluru. The first
appellant, Byrappa, relies upon a gift deed dated 05.05.1939
and a registered sale deed dated 08.03.1940. The appellants
contend that the properties had been already developed with
houses and other residential structures before the Mysore
(Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 came
into force. They also rely upon khatha records and tax-paid
receipts to support their claim of long-standing possession.
- 46 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
13.2. The land in Survey No.134 of Binnamangala
Village was notified under the Inams Abolition Act on
07.07.1958. According to the appellants, their predecessors
had applied in 1959 for registration of their names as
occupants. By order dated 02.01.1962, the Special Deputy
Commissioner rejected the claim relating to the built-up
portions, observing that the land was fully developed and
situated in an urban area and that the question of title to
buildings or lands converted for building purposes was outside
the scope of his jurisdiction under the Act. The appellants rely
upon this order as having attained finality.
13.3. Meanwhile, an application dated 04.12.1959 had
been made by Dasappa in respect of Survey Nos.130, 131 and
134 of Binnamangala Village. His legal heirs thereafter filed
W.P. No.7950/1997, which was disposed of on 24.10.1997 with
a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to consider the
application. In proceedings bearing No. INA/CR/13/1997-1998,
the Special Deputy Commissioner passed an order dated
12.07.1999 granting occupancy rights in favour of the
contesting respondents in respect of lands including Survey
No.134. The appellants contend that this order was passed
- 47 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
without notice to them, although they were in possession of
houses and sites in the said survey number.
13.4. The appellants challenged the order dated
12.07.1999 in W.P. No.12584/2005 and connected writ
petitions. By common order dated 06.09.2013, the writ court
granted liberty to approach the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal
and establish the nature of the properties and their rights. The
appellants thereafter filed Appeal No.1167/2013 before the
Tribunal. By order dated 07.11.2014, the Tribunal dismissed
the appeal and confirmed the Special Deputy Commissioner’s
order. The appellants then filed W.P. Nos.57024–57027/2014
challenging the Tribunal’s order.
14. Order passed in the writ petition:
14.1. W.P. No.12584/2005 and W.P. Nos.57024–
57027/2014 were considered together and disposed of by
common order dated 02.02.2018. The writ court declined to
interfere with the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal,
observing that the order dated 12.07.1999 passed by the
Special Deputy Commissioner had already been the subject of
earlier proceedings before this Court and the Supreme Court.
- 48 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
In that view, the writ court held that the question of interfering
with the same order did not arise for consideration.
14.2. The appellants contend that the writ court
dismissed the proceedings without deciding whether the
buildings in Survey No.134 existed before the date of vesting
and whether such properties were protected under Sections 9
and 12 of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams
Abolition Act, 1954. Aggrieved by the order dated 02.02.2018,
they have preferred the present writ appeal.
15. Grounds raised in the writ appeal:
15.1. The appellants contend that the writ court erred in
treating the issue as concluded by the earlier proceedings
without examining the specific claim relating to the pre-existing
buildings. They rely upon the order dated 02.01.1962 passed
by the Special Deputy Commissioner, which, according to them,
had rejected the claims relating to built-up portions of Survey
No.134 on the ground that the area was fully developed and
urban in character. Their case is that the subsequent grant of
occupancy rights on 12.07.1999 could not have been made
- 49 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
without considering the effect of that earlier order and the
protection claimed under Section 2 of the Act.
15.2. It is urged that the order dated 09.02.2015
passed in W.A. No.6427/2013 and W.A. Nos.1467–1471/2014,
arising out of W.P. No.50708/2004, was material to the
controversy. The appellants rely upon the observations made
therein that, if structures existed on the date of vesting, the
owners could protect their properties even if they or their
predecessors had not applied for re-grant, and that the Tribunal
was required to determine the existence of such structures on
the basis of the documents produced. According to the
appellants, this aspect was not considered while dismissing the
writ petitions.
15.3. The appellants further rely upon the earlier order
dated 25.03.1978 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner
concerning claims over Survey Nos.130, 131, 134, 135 and 136
of Binnamangala Village. They refer to Appeal No.272/1979
before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, which was disposed of
on 24.02.1981. Their contention is that the earlier adjudication
and the findings therein had a bearing on the subsequent grant
in respect of Survey No.134 and ought to have been considered
- 50 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
before confirming the occupancy rights granted to the
contesting respondents.
15.4. It is also contended that the decisions in W.P.
No.4300/2001, W.A. No.1103/2004, W.P. No.988/2002, W.A.
No.655/2002 and SLP (Civil) No.6987/2002 could not have
been treated as conclusively deciding the present issue.
According to the appellants, those proceedings did not involve
adjudication of their specific contention concerning the
protection available to pre-existing buildings under Section 2 of
the Act. They submit that the writ court ought to have
examined whether the facts and issues in those cases were the
same as those raised by them.
15.5. The appellants accordingly seek setting aside of
the order dated 02.02.2018 and consequential interference with
the order dated 07.11.2014 passed by the Karnataka Appellate
Tribunal in Appeal No.1167/2013, as well as the order dated
12.07.1999 passed in INA.CR. No.13/1997-98. Their principal
grievance is that the question whether the properties were
already built-up before vesting, and the legal consequence
flowing from such existence, remain unexamined.
- 51 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
16. The first group — W.A. No.976/2018 and
connected appeals: This group includes R. Balakrishna, his
wife Sujatha, his son Nuthan R. Balakrishna and his daughter
B. Thunga @ Rukmine, who claim ownership and possession of
residential properties situated in Survey No.134 of
Binnamangala Village. Their claim is founded on registered sale
deeds and other documents relating to the respective
residential properties, which, according to them, were in
existence prior to the vesting of the land. They contend that
the buildings and sites owned by them could not have been
included in the grant of occupancy rights without examining
their independent rights. Their appeal arises from the order
dated 15.02.2018 passed in W.P. No.48024/2014, whereby the
writ court set aside the order dated 01.10.2014 passed by the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.967/2013, which
had set aside the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner
dated 12.07.1999 and remanded the matter for fresh
consideration.
17. The second group — W.A.Nos.1750–
1751/2019 and connected appeals: This group includes the
legal representative of Byrappa, namely B. Sampath Kumar,
- 52 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
the legal representatives of B.C.N. Prakash, and Y.V. Prasad,
along with the other appellants arrayed in the connected
appeals. They claim rights in the sites and buildings situated in
New Binnamangala and rely upon documents such as the gift
deed dated 05.05.1939, the sale deed dated 08.03.1940,
khatha records and tax-paid receipts. Their challenge arises
from the dismissal of W.P. Nos.57024–57027/2014 and
connected proceedings by order dated 02.02.2018. Those writ
petitions questioned the order dated 07.11.2014 passed by the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.1167/2013, whereby
the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of
the Special Deputy Commissioner dated 12.07.1999. Their
principal grievance is that their claims relating to the pre-
existing buildings and their independent rights were not
properly considered in the proceedings concerning the grant of
occupancy rights.
18. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for
the appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents. Both sides have advanced elaborate submissions,
vehemently canvassing their respective positions and opposing
the contentions urged by the other .
- 53 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
19. Having regard to the nature of the controversy, the
orders passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and the
grounds urged in all the four writ appeals, this Court has
considered the matter collectively. Upon perusal of the records
and pleadings in the connected appeals, we proceed to pass the
following order:
20. We are inclined to remit the matters to the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration, essentially for the
reason that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does
not disclose a proper examination of the merits and demerits of
the rival contentions. The writ court appears to have proceeded
on the premise that the issues had already been considered
and concluded in the earlier proceedings. However, the order
does not clearly indicate what issues had actually been
considered and decided in those proceedings, nor does it
identify the issues that had remained unconsidered and
required independent adjudication. In the absence of such an
analysis, it is difficult to ascertain whether the issues raised by
the parties in the present proceedings were, in fact, adjudicated
earlier or whether they require consideration on their own
merits. Merely referring to the outcome of the earlier
- 54 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
proceedings, without identifying the issues decided therein and
examining their applicability to the disputes at hand, would not
constitute an adequate basis for bringing the proceedings to a
close.
21. In these circumstances, we are of the considered
view that the connected matters warrant reconsideration by the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal shall
comprehensively examine the respective pleadings, objections,
documents and contentions of all parties, identify the issues
that arise for consideration and record its independent findings
on each of the issues requiring adjudication. It shall also
distinguish between matters, if any, already conclusively
decided in earlier proceedings and those which remain open for
consideration, in accordance with law. We accordingly deem it
appropriate to remit the connected matters to the Tribunal for
fresh consideration and disposal by a separate and reasoned
order, without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits
of the rival claims.
- 55 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
REASONS FOR REMAND:
22. Upon consideration of the records and the rival
submissions, we are of the considered view that the matters
require reconsideration by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.
The principal reason that persuades us to remit the matters is
that the writ court has proceeded substantially on the basis of
the decisions rendered in the earlier proceedings, without
clearly identifying the issues that were considered and finally
decided therein and the issues that had not been examined.
The impugned order does not disclose an adequate
consideration of the grounds urged by the parties in the context
of their respective claims and the orders passed by the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in the proceedings giving rise to
these appeals.
23. The mere fact that certain proceedings concerning
the order dated 12.07.1999 passed by the Special Deputy
Commissioner in Case No. INA/CR/13/1997-1998 had been
decided earlier would not, by itself, dispense with the necessity
of examining whether the issues raised in the present
proceedings were directly and finally determined in those
proceedings. It was necessary to identify the precise issues
- 56 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
decided earlier and consider their bearing on the grounds now
urged by the parties. In the absence of such an examination,
the competing contentions cannot be regarded as having been
adjudicated merely by reference to the outcome of the earlier
proceedings.
24. We also notice that some of the parties contend
that they were not afforded an opportunity of hearing before
the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and that orders affecting their
rights came to be passed without their participation. Some of
them have approached this Court by way of writ petitions and
writ appeals, asserting that they were not heard in the
proceedings and were consequently deprived of an opportunity
to place their defence and the documents in support of their
respective claims. These contentions assume significance in
view of the assertion that the parties claim independent rights
in the subject properties and that the orders passed in the
proceedings have a direct bearing on such rights. Their
grievances, therefore, required examination with reference to
the records, including whether they were impleaded, duly
served and afforded an effective opportunity to put forth their
respective cases.
- 57 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
25. The records further disclose that the parties claim
rights in respect of properties situated in Survey No.134 of
Binnamangala Village on different factual and legal bases. While
some parties rely upon the grant of occupancy rights, others
assert independent rights in respect of sites and buildings and
rely upon documents in support of their claims. The rival
contentions, therefore, require consideration with reference to
the pleadings, objections, documents and grounds urged in the
respective appeals. The orders under challenge do not
adequately delineate the issues that were adjudicated in the
earlier proceedings from those that remained unexamined, nor
do they demonstrate that the grievances of the parties who
claim to have been denied an opportunity of hearing were
appropriately considered. In these circumstances, we are
unable to sustain the disposal of the matters merely by relying
upon the outcome of the earlier proceedings.
26. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the
connected matters warrant remand to the Karnataka Appellate
Tribunal for fresh consideration. The Tribunal shall ensure that
all necessary parties, including the legal representatives
brought on record, are duly represented and that notice is
- 58 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
served upon every party who has not been heard. Each appeal
shall be considered individually and independently, having
regard to the grounds urged therein, the pleadings, objections,
documents and rival contentions of the parties. The Tribunal
shall identify the issues arising for consideration, examine the
effect of the earlier proceedings to the extent relevant, and
record its independent findings in accordance with law. The
parties shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to place their
respective cases before the Tribunal.
27. We are conscious that the present writ appeals
have been pending before this Court since 2018 and that
several legal representatives have been brought on record
during the pendency of the proceedings. The remand shall not
become an occasion for further delay. The Tribunal shall,
therefore, proceed with the matters in a time-bound manner,
ensuring at the same time that the parties are heard and that
the issues arising in each appeal receive due consideration.
28. We make it clear that the remand is ordered on the
grounds noticed above, namely, the absence of adequate
consideration of the rival contentions, the need to ascertain the
issues actually decided in the earlier proceedings and those left
- 59 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
open, and the grievances of certain parties that they were not
heard before orders affecting their rights were passed. We have
not examined or expressed any opinion on the merits or
demerits of the rival claims. All questions are left open for
determination by the Tribunal in accordance with law.
In the result, we pass the following;
ORDER
(i) All the writ appeals are allowed in part ;
(ii) The impugned orders are set aside to the extent
necessary and the matters are remitted to the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration
in accordance with law;
(iii) The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal shall deal with
each of the appeals individually and independently,
having regard to the grounds urged, the pleadings,
objections, documents and rival contentions in that
appeal. The Tribunal shall pass separate, reasoned
orders in the respective appeals and shall not treat
the determination of any one appeal as
automatically concluding the issues arising in
another;
(iv) The parties shall appear before the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal on 16.11.2026 . At the outset,
- 60 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
the Tribunal shall verify that all necessary parties,
including the legal representatives brought on
record, are duly represented and shall issue notice
to any party who has not been served or heard. The
Tribunal shall thereafter proceed with the matters
in accordance with law;
(v) The parties shall be at liberty to file such pleadings,
additional pleadings, statements of objections and
supporting documents as may be necessary for
proper adjudication. The Tribunal shall consider the
same, together with the grounds urged and the
rival contentions advanced, and decide each appeal
afresh in accordance with law;
(vi) The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal shall complete
the proceedings and pass appropriate orders in all
the appeals within six months from 16.11.2026;
(vii) The parties shall cooperate with the Tribunal and
shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. In the
event of an unwarranted request for adjournment,
the Tribunal shall be at liberty to impose
appropriate and substantial costs, in accordance
with law, having regard to the circumstances and
the delay occasioned thereby;
(viii) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed
any opinion on the merits or demerits of the rival
claims. The observations made herein are confined
- 61 -
WA No. 1284 of 2018
C/W WA No. 976 of 2018
WA No. 3220 of 2018
WA No.1750 of 2019
to the grounds warranting remand and shall not
influence the Tribunal in deciding the appeals. The
Tribunal shall independently consider the grounds
urged and the rival contentions and record its
findings on the issues arising for determination, in
accordance with law;
(ix) All contentions on the merits are left open; and
(x) There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)
JUDGE
KNM