Ramakrishna Reddy vs State of Karnataka

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 07.11.2013 in accordance with law.

The petitioner claims that the land in Sy. No. 117/13 measuring 10 guntas in Koramangala Village was the land to which the grandfather of the petitioner was registered as Kadim Tenant u/s 4 of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, pursuant to the report dated 03.06.1958. The petitioner therefore contends that he has inherited right in respect of the said property of 10. guntas of land therein. The Koramangala village was notified by the respondents for formation of a residential layout. From out of the said 10 guntas of land, the respondents are stated to have acquired 21/2 guntas for formation of a road. The petitioner contends that his grandfather by his representation dated 27.09.1979 requested the respondent-authority to grant alternate land for the extent of the land acquired. The petitioner contends that the respondents have maintained silence with regard to the same and therefore the petitioner has thereafter made a representation dated 07.11.2013 claiming right in respect of the said property. Since the same has not received consideration at the hands of the respondent-authority, the petitioner is before this Court seeking that the respondents be directed to consider the representation.

The averments made in the petition and the documents produced itself would indicate that the petitioner herein had filed a suit in O.S. No. 5770/1990 which was dismissed on 04.02.2011 and against the same, the petitioner had filed a first appeal before this Court in RFA No. 729/2011. This Court while disposing of the appeal on 30.08.2011 had made an observation that since the question relating to the property having been re-conveyed by way of exchange is a separate aspect, the petitioner cannot assail the same either by filing a writ petition or by filing a suit against the contesting respondents and there is no scope for interference. Subsequent to the disposal of the writ petition, the representation is made to the respondent-authority and the instant petition has been filed.

As rightly pointed out by the leaned counsel for respondent No. 2, the stand of respondent No. 2 has already been put forth in the suit in O.S. No. 5770/1990 to which respondent No. 2 herein was impleaded as defendant No. 4. It is pointed out that in any event there is no serious dispute to the fact that 10 guntas of land has been re-conveyed by respondent No. 2 which relates to the property as is being claimed by the petitioner herein.

If that be the position, when a stand has already been taken by respondent No. 2 that to extent of the land to which a right has been claimed has been conveyed to defendants No. 1 to 3 in the said suit, if at all the petitioner had any right to the said property it ought to have been worked out inter se between the petitioner and defendants No. 1 to 3. However, what is seen is that, in the suit which had been filed, a relief of declaration that defendant No. 4 therein i.e., BDA should recover possession of the said property so as to make it available to the plaintiff has been sought. When the right has been considered in the suit and when the position is also clear that the property to which the petitioner is presently laying claim has already been parted by respondent No. 2 by re-conveying the same, the consideration of the representation at this juncture by respondent No. 2 would not arise.

In such circumstance, if at all the petitioner has any right to a share in the said property, the petitioner should workout the same in accordance with law as against the persons to whom the re-conveyance has been made by respondent No. 2. Therefore, the relief as prayed in the instant petition cannot be granted.

The petition is accordingly disposed of.