Sri Puttaiah vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Puttaiah vs The State of Karnataka

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Jul 15, 2025

~6 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1686708

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1686708
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: E.S.Indiresh
Decided On: Jul 15, 2025
Case Number: WP/10315/2024

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sri Puttaiah

Respondent

The State of Karnataka

Excerpt

.....in respect of the 31 guntas of land -5- which has fallen to the share of father of the petitioner herein, and therefore, submitted that respondent no.2 without considering the subject matter of the land bearing sy.no.173/1a, has interfered with the order passed by respondent no.3 and accordingly, sought for interference of this court.4. it is also contended by the learned senior counsel byreferring to the proceedings in o.s.no.814/2024 wherein the declaration suit is pending consideration before the trial court and therefore, sought for interference of this court.5. per contra, sri. t.c. sathish kumar, learned counselrepresenting respondent nos.5 to 12, submitted that the land in question in the present writ petition has been claimed by the petitioner based on a compromise decree between the petitioner and smt. arasamma before respondent no.4 and therefore, he contended that, irrespective of the alienation made by said arasamma in favour of the petitioner herein, unless the execution of the registered release deed has been made to that effect, the petitioner cannot claim any right over -6- the property and accordingly, he submitted that the matter is of civil nature.6. learned additional government advocate sought to justify the impugned orders at annexures - a and n to the writ petition.7. in the light of the submissions made by the learnedcounsel appearing for the parties, on careful examination of the partition deed produced at annexure-d and also by looking into annexure-f2, wherein the land bearing sy.no.173/1 to an extent of 32 guntas has been allotted in favour of puttaiah, s/o muniyappa. in the backdrop of these aspects, on careful examination of the order passed by respondent no.3 at annexure-n would indicate that since the land has been allotted in favour of said muniyappa, the mutation entry has to be made in favour of said puttaiah pursuant to the partition deed referred to at annexure-d. in that view of the matter, on careful consideration of the.....

Full Judgment

-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 10315 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SRI. PUTTAIAH
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT HOSAPALYA KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SUSHEELA S., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRADEEP H.S., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Digitally signed REVENUE DEPARTMENT, by SHARMA M S BUILDING ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH BENGALURU - 560001 COURT OF REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. KARNATAKA
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT K G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560009.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, KANDHAYA BHAVANA, K G ROAD BENGALURU - 560009. -2-
4. THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, D C COMPOUND BUILDING K G ROAD BENGALURU - 560009.
5. SRI MARAPPA S/OLATE ARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT NO.3431/D, 7TH MAIN ROAD, BEHIND BMTC GARAGE SUBBANNA GARDEN VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560040. KRISHNAPA DEAD BY LRS
6. SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
7. SRI. LAKKANNA S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
8. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O KRISHNAMURTHY D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.6 TO 8 ARE R/AT NO.10/3, HOSAGUDDAHALLI, F CROSS, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560026.
9. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMI @ LAKSHMI W/O VENKATESH D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS -3-
10. SMT. ARASAMMA @ YASHODA W/O MUNIRAJ D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS HINDU RESPONDENTS NO. 9 & 10 ARE R/AT SANJEEVANAGAR BENGALURU - 560094.
11. SRI. HARISHA S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS HINDU
12. SRI. DHANANJAYA S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS HINDU RESPONDETNS NO. 11 & 12 ARE R/AT NO.10/3 HOSAGUDDAHALLI, F CROSS, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560026. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SIDDHARTH BABURAO, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. T.C. SATHISH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R12) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07/03/2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 / THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU IN RP NO.311/2014-15 AT ANNEXURE-A. CONSEQUENTLY CONFIRM THE ORDER DATED PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 / THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU IN RA NO. RA(S)56/2013-14 (ANNEXURE-N). DATED 28.10.2024. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

-4- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the order dated 07.03.2024 in R.P.No.311/2014-15 (Annexure-A) passed by respondent No.2, consequently seeking confirmation of the

order dated 28.10.2014 passed by respondent No.3 in

R.A.(S)No.56/2013-14 (Annexure-N).

3. Smt. S. Susheela, learned Senior Counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the partition said to have been effected in the family of the original propositus Sri. Balaiah, under which the subject land bearing Sy.No.173/1 has fallen to the share of Sri. Muniyappa (father of the petitioner herein) and which is the subject matter of this writ petition. It is further contended by learned Senior Counsel by referring to the family tree at Annexure-E that all the children of Balaiah are entitled for 31 guntas each, in respect of the total extent of land belonging to Balaiah and therefore, the respondents have no right in respect of the 31 guntas of land -5- which has fallen to the share of father of the petitioner herein, and therefore, submitted that respondent No.2 without considering the subject matter of the land bearing Sy.No.173/1A, has interfered with the order passed by respondent No.3 and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.

4. It is also contended by the learned Senior Counsel by

referring to the proceedings in O.S.No.814/2024 wherein the declaration suit is pending consideration before the Trial Court and therefore, sought for interference of this Court.

5. Per contra, Sri. T.C. Sathish Kumar, learned counsel

representing respondent Nos.5 to 12, submitted that the land in question in the present writ petition has been claimed by the petitioner based on a compromise decree between the petitioner and Smt. Arasamma before respondent No.4 and therefore, he contended that, irrespective of the alienation made by said Arasamma in favour of the petitioner herein, unless the execution of the registered release deed has been made to that effect, the petitioner cannot claim any right over -6- the property and accordingly, he submitted that the matter is of civil nature.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate sought to justify the impugned orders at Annexures - A and N to the Writ Petition.

7. In the light of the submissions made by the learned

counsel appearing for the parties, on careful examination of the partition deed produced at Annexure-D and also by looking into Annexure-F2, wherein the land bearing Sy.No.173/1 to an extent of 32 guntas has been allotted in favour of Puttaiah, S/o Muniyappa. In the backdrop of these aspects, on careful examination of the order passed by respondent No.3 at Annexure-N would indicate that since the land has been allotted in favour of said Muniyappa, the mutation entry has to be made in favour of said Puttaiah pursuant to the partition deed referred to at Annexure-D. In that view of the matter, on careful consideration of the order passed by respondent No.2 would make it clear that nothing has been discussed by respondent No.2 with regard to Sy.No.173/1 in the impugned

order by giving reasons.

-7-

9. In that view of the matter, I find force in the submission

made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that Annexure-A dated 07.03.2024 issued by respondent No.2 is required to be set aside and order passed by respondent No.3 at Annexure-N has to be confirmed. However, taking into consideration that rights of the parties is yet to be considered in O.S. No.814/2024 pending on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural Court, I am of the view that, parties are required to await the judgment and decree that may be passed by the Trial Court, therein.

10. In view of the above, order dated 07.03.2024 in

R.P.No.311/2014-15 (Annexure-A) passed by respondent No.2, is hereby set aside and the order dated 28.10.2014 passed by respondent No.3 in R.A.(S)No.56/2013-14 (Annexure-N), is hereby confirmed.

11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed. I.A.1/2024 does not survive for consideration. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2025 Same Parties Sri Puttaiah vs The State of Karnataka Same Judge E.S.Indiresh