MANJULA REDDY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common ground raising a challenge in both these writ petitions is in respect of a communication dtd. 7/4/2022 made by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District to the Special Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk, therefore, both these writ petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The writ petitioners in both these petitions claim to have purchased 4 acres and 30 guntas respectively in Sy.No.31/14 of Gattahalli Village, Sarjapur Hobli, Anekal Taluk under separate sale deeds dtd. 30/4/2013 and 16/12/2019. The vendors of both set of writ petitioners are Sri Housla Prasad Tripadi and Aruna Tripadi, who are said to have purchased 5 acres of land at the hands of Sri G.Ameer and Sri G.Nisar in the year 2011. Ultimately, the vendor in title is traced as late Sri Narayana Reddy, who is none other than the husband of the 5th respondent herein. The 5th respondent also does not dispute the fact that her husband late Sri Narayana Reddy, by sale deed dtd. 22/12/1981, disposed of 5 acres of land in Sy.No.31/14. Now however a claim is set up by the 5th respondent stating that her husband Sri Narayana Reddy also had another extent of 5 acres in sy.No.31/16. It is sought to be contended at the hands of the 5th respondent that in the guise of the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners herein, they have sought to lay claim in respect of Sy.No.31/16, which was never sold by Sri Naryana Reddy. On the other hand, it is the contention of the petitioners that before the sale deeds were executed in favour of the petitioners herein the entire extent of 5 acres of land were converted from agricultural to non- agricultural residential purposes by order dtd. 18/12/2012 and 16/5/2013 made by the competent authority.

(3.) The 5th respondent herein had earlier approached the Tahsildar to have her name entered in the land records in respect of Sy.No.31/16, which according to the 5th respondent was standing in the name of her father-in-law Sri Halanayakanahalli Ramaiah. When order was passed in favour of the 5th respondent by the Tahsildar, the writ petitioners in W.P.No.9683/2022 challenged the same before the Assistant Commissioner under Sec. 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1964. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Tahsildar by order dtd. 28/4/2017.