IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

WRIT PETITION NO.4871 OF 2022 ( KLR-RR/SUR)

BETWEEN:

M/S. SOUTH INDIA WATCH COMPANY PVT. LTD.

A PRIVATE LTD. COMPANY, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT:
NO.39, KRISHNAREDDY LAYOUT,
DOMMALURU,
BENGALURU - 560 071.
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR
MR. RAJKUMAR HARLALKA.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. VENKATESH R. BHAGAT, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION,
BENGALURU - 577 201.

2. THE TAHASILDAR
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
K.R. PURAM,
BENGALURU - 560 036.

3. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI
D/O LATE C.L. RAMASWAMY
W/O LATE SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/AT NO.68, MARIYAMMA TEMPLE ROAD,
BANASAWADI,
BENGALURU - 560 043.

4. SRI. R. VINOD KUMAR

S/O LATE M. RAMASWAMY
 -2-

AGED ABOUT: MAJOR,

R/AT: NO.20, 1ST FLOOR,
ASHIN APARTMENT,
INNER CIRCLE, WHITEFIELD,
BENGALURU - 560 066.

5. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR

K.R. PURAM-3 HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 036.

6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
BENGALURU - 560 001.

7. SRI. G. SHANKAR
S/O G. GURUSWAMY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT NO.675, MANJUNATHA LAYOUT,
T.C. PALYA,
BENGALURU - 36.
….RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1 R2,

R5 & R6;
SRI. V. ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. S.N. ASHWATHNARAYAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.A. SUDHINDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R7;
RESPONDENT NO.4 -DELETED V/O DATED 11.10.2022)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15TH FEBRUARY, 2022 PASSED
BY THE RESPONDENT NO.6-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN
REVISION PETITION NO.194/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A,
CONFIMRING THE ORDER DATED 07TH MARCH, 2019
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1-ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND CONSEQUENTLY
 -3-

QUASH THE MUTATION ENTRY IN THE NAME OF THE

RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-W; AND ETC.

IN THIS WRIT PETITION, ARGUMENTS BEING HEARD,

RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS", THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

In this writ petition, the petitioner-Company is assailing

order dated 15th February, 2022 (Annexure-A) passed in

Revision Petition No.194/2019 by the respondent No.6-

Deputy Commissioner and order dated 07th March, 2019

(Annexure-B) passed in R.A.(BE):108/2017-18 by the

respondent No.1-Assistant Commissioner' wherein the claim

made by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. The factual aspects on record in brief as

contended by the petitioner are that the petitioner is the

owner in possession of land bearing old Survey No.37, new

Survey No.141/1 now having Survey No.141/1B situate at

Pattandur Agrahara Village, Bengaluru East Taluk. It is

stated that the petitioner had purchased the land in

question as per four registered Sale Deeds dated 10th

October, 2003 from their vendors M/s Birdy Holdings Pvt.

Ltd. and also from the children of Smt. Sita Ramaswamy.

It is further stated in the writ petition that the said vendor-

 -4-

M/s Birdy Holdings Pvt. Ltd. had purchased the property

from one Smt. Sita Ramaswamy as per registered Sale

Deed dated 18th May, 1994 (Annexure-E). It is also

averred in the petition that, Smt. Sita Ramaswamy W/o

C.L. Ramaswamy was the owner in possession of the land

bearing old Survey No.37 (new Survey No.141/4) of

Pattandur Agrahara Village, Bengaluru East Taluk and has

formed private Layout in the schedule property.

Thereafter, the land in question has fallen within the limits

of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. It is further stated

in the writ petition that the respondent No.3 herein claims

to be the daughter of said Smt. Sita Ramaswamy, in

collusion with the respondent No.4 have fabricated the

Death Certificate (Annexure-J) of Smt. Sita Ramaswamy

and got mutation in their favour as M.R. No.H-21/2016-17.

It is the further case of the petitioner that, though there is

no agricultural land available to continue in the revenue

entries, the respondent No.3 in collusion with the

respondent No.4 have created the revenue documents. It

is further averred in the writ petition that the said Smt. Sita

Ramaswamy is having five children namely, Mr. C.R. Vijaya

Raghavan, Mrs. C.R. Satyabhama, Mrs. Sarasa

 -5-

Sheshanarayan, Mrs. Sumitra Goutham and Dr. Suchitra

Mahadeva and respondent No.3 herein is not the daughter

of late Sita Ramaswamy. The respondent No.3 herein has

fabricated the documents fictitiously representing as the

daughter of late Sita Ramaswamy, filed affidavit as per

Annexure-X (Family Tree) and got the mutation entry in her

name. In this regard, criminal case has been lodged

against respondents 3 and 4 in Crime No.8 of 2020 for the

offences punishable under Sections 120B, 417, 419, 468,

471, 420, 193 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code on the file of the Seshadripuram Police Station and

charge-sheet is filed before the competent Court as per

Annexure-AB. The respondent No.3 herein making use of

the mutation entry, sold the property in favour of the

respondent No.7-G. Shankar as per registered Sale Deed

dated 17th July, 2019 (Annexure-AE). It is the case of the

petitioner that the Sale Deed executed by the respondent

No.3 in favour of the respondent No.7 is fraudulent act and

said aspect has not been considered by the respondents 1

and 6 while passing the impugned orders and as such,

presented this writ petition, challenging the orders passed

at Annexures 'A' and 'B'.

 -6-

3. Heard Sri. Venkatesh R. Bhagat, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Mohammed Jaffar

Shah, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing

for respondents 1, 2, 5 and 6; Sri. V. Anand, leaned

counsel appearing for respondent No.3; and Sri. S.N.

Ashwathnarayan, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri.

S.A. Sudhindra, appearing for the respondent No.7.

4. Sri. Venkatesh R. Bhagat, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner contended that, respondents 1

and 6 have not considered the said fact that the respondent

No.3 was not the owner in possession of land and

respondent No.3 is not the daughter of the said Smt. Sita

Ramaswamy, and therefore, the entire transaction made by

the respondent No.3 in favour of the respondent No.7 is

null and void. He further contended that the criminal cases

are pending consideration against respondents No.3 and 4

and charge-sheet has been made against them, however,

the said aspect has not been considered by respondents 1

and 6. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court.

5. Per contra, Sri. S.N. Ashwathnarayan, learned

Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri. S.A. Sudhindra, appearing

 -7-

for the respondent No.7 sought to justify the impugned

orders on the ground that the respondent No.7 had

purchased the land from the original owner-respondent

No.3 herein, who is the daughter of C.L. Ramaswamy and

Sita Ramaswamy and therefore, he contended that the

petitioner-Company has to establish its right over the

property in question. In this regard, he refers to the

confirmation Deed dated 15th December, 2022 executed by

the respondent No.3 and her son Manikanta in favour of the

petitioner and submitted that the petitioner cannot

approbate and reprobate on the factual aspects on record

by contending that the respondent No.3 is not a daughter

of said C.L. Ramaswamy and Smt. Sita Ramaswamy. In

this regard he places reliance on judgment of Division

Bench of this Court in the case of SMT. SUGUNA

RAJKUMAR vs. R. RAJMAL AND ANOTHER reported in

ILR 2005 KAR 1583 and judgment of Full Bench of this

Court in the case of C.N. NAGENDRA SINGH vs. THE

SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE

DISTRICT AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2002 KAR 2750

and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

 -8-

6. Sri. V. Ananda, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent No.3 reiterating the averments made in the

statement of objections contended that the respondent

No.3 is not the daughter of C.L. Ramaswamy and Sita

Ramaswamy and respondent No.7 is the instrumental in

getting the documents through her and therefore,

contended that the compromise petition filed by the

respondent No.3 with the petitioner herein has to be

accepted.

7. In the light of the submission made by learned

counsel appearing for the parties and on careful

examination of writ papers would indicate that the

petitioner claims to be owner of the property in question as

per the Sale Deed dated 10th October, 2003. On the other

hand, the respondent No.7 had purchased the property as

per registered Sale Deed dated 17th July, 2019 (Annexure-

AE) executed by the respondent No.3. I have also noticed

the criminal complaint lodged by the petitioner against the

respondents 3 and 4 in Crime No.8/2020 before the

Seshadripuram Police Station, Bengaluru. In the backdrop

of these aspects, I have carefully examined the compromise

 -9-

petition filed by the petitioner with the respondent No.3,

wherein, at paragraph 4, it states as follows:

"The 3rd Respondent has admitted the flow of

title of the petitioner and declares that she under
mistaken understanding claimed to be the legal
heir/daughter of Smt. Sita Ramaswamy, based on
which she got the order as per Annexure-B from the
Assistant Commissioner, which was confirmed as per
order at Annexure-A by the Deputy Commissioner."

8. It is the principal argument of the petitioner that

the respondent No.3 has no authority under law to execute

the registered Sale Deed in favour of the respondent No.7

and on the other hand, it is contended that, Criminal cases

are lodged against the respondent No.3 by the petitioner;

and in the present writ petition, the petitioner has filed

compromise petition with the respondent No.3. In the

backdrop of these undisputed aspects, the petitioner-

Company has to establish its right over the property in

question as the disputed question of facts are involved in

this writ petition and that apart, the registered confirmation

Deed being executed between the respondent No.3 with the

petitioner, which demonstrates that the title to the property

is to be established by the parties. In that view of the

 - 10 -

matter, following the law declared by this Court in the case

of SUGUNA RAJKUMAR (supra) particularly referring to

paragraph 22 of the judgment, this Court cannot conduct a

trial to determine whether the Sale Deed executed by the

respondent No.3 in favour of the respondent No.7 is fraud

and based on the fabricated documents. Therefore,

respondents 1 and 6 have rightly relegated the petitioner-

Company to establish its right over the property in question

in a manner known to law. Therefore, I am of the view that

the petitioner has not made out a case for interference in

this writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

SD/-
JUDGE

ARK