JAYAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three writ petitions arise between common parties and in respect of a property bearing Sy.No.152/1, situated at Doddathogur Village, Begur Hobli, Bangaluru South Taluk. Therefore, the petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Certain undisputed facts are that one Sri.Kaveriga was granted the land in question. Subsequent to his death, the legal heirs who inherited the property, got the khata transferred in their names. According to the inheritance khata, the names of the legal heirs of Sri.Kaveriga were entered in the revenue records, in respect of the property in question. The khathedars sold the property under a registered sale deed dated 09.04.2001, in favour of one Sri.Karar Ahmed. Consequent to the transfer, the revenue records were mutated in the name of Sri.Karar Ahmed. Thereafter, he got the lands converted from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose, from the competent authority, on 21.09.2001. Sri.Karar Ahmed sold a parcel of the converted land, measuring about 1 acre 30 guntas, out of 2 acres 31 guntas, in favour of one Sri.K.Boopathy, on 27.07.2002. The remaining extent was sold in favour of M/s. Pathy Housing Private Ltd., represented by Sri.K.Boopathy, on 21.05.2003. The said Sri. K. Boopathy got a plan sanctioned for formation of a layout in respect of 1 acre 30 guntas and thereafter formed residential sites in the layout and sold 12 sites in favour Sri.K.C.Varghese. These 12 sites measuring about 14,880 sq.ft. were sold by Sri.K.C.Varghese in favour of M/s. Unidesign Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner in W.P.No.915/2020 and W.P.5008/2020 and the 4th petitioner in W.P.No.9723/2020.

(3.) In the meanwhile, some persons had moved the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, seeking change of revenue entries in respect of Sy.No.152/1 and the adjacent properties. The Special Tahsildar, by order dated 21.12.2005 had directed entry of the names of the applicants in the revenue records, including Sy.No.152/1. Sri.K.Boopathy preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner and the appeal was allowed, setting aside the order passed by the Special Tahsildar and further directed restoration of the khata as it stood earlier. At this juncture, the 8th respondent Sri.Muniraju M filed Revision Petition before the Deputy Commissioner, challenging the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner stating that he has not sold the property in favour of Sri.Karar Ahmed and that his name and signatures were fabricated in the sale deed. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the Revision Petition and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner.