BEFORE THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE

SOUTH SUB-DIVISION AT BANGALORE

RA. NO. _______/2024

BETWEEN:
HARSHAD J PARIKH
S/o Jaswant Lal C Parikh
Aged about 72 years
R/at No.116, 7th Cross,
9th Main Road, RMV Extension
Bangalore 560080 APPELLANT

AND:
01. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore

02. M/S CITRUS VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED

A company registered under Companies Act,
Reg office at 106/10-11-12,
Amruthahalli, Byatarayanapura,
Bellary Road,
Bangalore – 560 092

03. SRI. APPAYANNA.M

S/o Late Munishamappa,
Aged about 59 years,

04. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA.M

W/o Late Appayanna.M
Aged about 54 years

05. SRI.VASANTHKUMAR.A
S/o Late Appayanna.M
Aged about 37 years,

06. SMT. SHILPA

W/o Vasanthkumar.M
Aged about 29 years

a. KUMARI AYUSHI
D/o Vasanthkumar. M
Aged about 7 years

b. MASTER VARADARAJU
S/o Vasanthkumar. M
Aged about 5 years
Both represented by their
natural guardian Vasanth Kumar

07. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA

Aged about 59 years,
W/o Late M. Krishnappa
08. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR. K
S/o Late M. Krishnappa
Aged about 44 years

09. SMT. GEETHA. C

W/o Shivakumar. K
Aged about 34 years

a. KUMARI PRAJWALITHA
D/o Shivakumar
Aged about 8 years

b. MASTER MANVITHESHWAR
S/o Shivakumar
Aged about 6 years,

10. SRI. SOMASHEKAR K

S/o Late M. Krishnappa,
Aged about 41 years,

11. SMT. KAVITHA A

W/o Somashekar.K
Aged about 33 years

a. MR. MONESH S
S/o Somashekar K
Aged about 18 years

b. KUMARI GAGANASHREE S
D/o Somashekar K
Aged about 15 years
Both represented by their natural guardian Somashekar.K

Respondent No. 3 to 10 are residing at,

Kalleshwara Nilaya,
Behind Government School,
Kallappa Layout, Amruthahalli Village,
Yelahanka Hobli, Sahakarnagar(Post)
Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru RESPONDENTS

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 136(2) OF THE KARNATAKA

LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964

The above named appellant respectfully submits as follows:

01. For the purpose of service of summons, court notice etc..,

the addresses of the parties are correctly stated in the

above cause title and the appellant may also be served

through his counsel, “Lawyers Inc”, Advocates & Solicitors,

 # 15/2, V.S. Raju Road, 12th Block, Kumara Park West,

Bangalore -560 020.

02. The appellant submits that the land bearing Sy.No.106/5,

measuring to an extent of 01.07 acres situated at

Amrutahalli Village, Bangalore North Taluk, Yelahanka

Hobli originally belongs to one Sri.Munishamappa S/o

Chikanna. The said Sri.Munishamappa has executed a Sale

Agreement dated 25.07.1989 in favour of Sri. Satish Pai

bearing document No. 337/1989-90, Book-I, Volume- SF-

11, pages 26-31, registered at the office of sub-registrar,

Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore. Under the said

agreement, Munishamappa has collected entire sale

consideration & further executed a registered power of

attorney in favour of S. Raghunath dated 25.07.1989 vide

Document No. 26/1989-90, Book-IV, Volume-SF-I, pages

91-95.

03. It is submitted that subsequently, children of

Munishamappa namely Krishnappa, Appayanna & Muniraju

has executed a Sale Deed dated 21.06.1997 in favour of

the appellant which is registered as No. BNG(U)YNK-

2560/1997-98. The Satish Pai who nominated the

appellant as his nominee to execute a Sale Deed has also

signed the document as witness. The transaction is also

reflected in register of Encumbrance for the period

01.04.1996 to 31.03.2004. The copy of the said Sale Deed

dated 21.06.1997 & the EC for the relevant year is

herewith produced as DOCUMENTS NO. 1 & 2. Hence,

 the appellant became the absolute owner in respect of

Sy.No.106/5.

04. The appellant submits that the Respondent No.2 to 11

without having any manner of right title, interest muchless

possession over the property fabricated the documents in

respect of the land in possession and ownership of the

Appellant approached the Respondent No.1 and obtained

Mutation registered in the name of the Respondent No.2.

Having regard to the sale deed dated 21.06.1997

executed by Sri.Munishamappa in favour of the Appellant,

the Respondent No. 3 to 11 have no manner of right to

apply for conversion of the land as the children of

Munishamappa having no right, title and interest vested in

them as on the date of filing such application. Subsequent

obtaining the conversion, the Respondent No.2 to 11 in

collusion with each other fabricated the sale deed dated

06.01.2023 and registered the same. Before fabricating

the sale deed, the Respondent No.2 to 11 have

fraudulently obtained the conversion of the land vide

official Memorandum bearing No.ALN(NAY)SR:29/22-23

dated 22.07.2022. The copy of the said Sale Deed dated

06.01.2023 is herewith produced as DOCUMENT NO.3.

05. Having regard to Section 48 of the Transfer of Property

Act and section 47 of Registration Act, the document so

created is fraudulent and cannot be recognized for any

purpose. The Respondent No.2 to 11 have played fraud

not only on the Appellant but also on the authorities. Once

the conversion is permitted by the DC, the Respondent

 No.1 has no authority to carry out mutation to the

revenue entries. The digitalized copy of the MR

fraudulently obtained by the Respondents No.2 to 11 is

herewith produced as DOCUMENT NO. 4.

06. It is submitted that the even though the Sy.No.106/5 had

stood in the name of the appellant from the year 1997

which is evident from the registered Sale Deed dated

21.06.1997 which is also reflected in register of

Encumbrance produced as Document No.2, the

respondent No.1 without application of mind and without

having legal authority effected revenue entries in favour of

2nd respondent which is liable to be set aside. Hence, this

appeal.

GROUNDS

07. The mutation carried out in MR No. H3 of 2022-23 is

illegal and without authority of law having regard to the

fact that the land to the extent of 17 Guntas is converted

vide OM bearing No. ALN (NAY)SR:26/22-23 dated 22-07-

2022 issued by the learned Deputy commissioner.

08. The Respondent No.2 to 11 have obtained registration of

the MR by practicing fraud on the authority and the

appellant.

09. The 1st respondent without making proper enquiry has

affected the name of 2nd respondent. Since the land is

already converted, the Respondent No.1 has no authority

to effect mutation in the revenue entries. On this ground

also the mutation is liable to be set aside.

10. Even otherwise, the 1st respondent is erred in passing the

orders & effecting the name of 2 nd respondent which is

contrary to the facts & circumstances of the case, legal

norms, warranting immediate interference from the hands

of this Hon’ble Authority.

11. The Appellant may be permitted to raise additional

grounds on the basis of record at the time of hearing.

12. The Appeal is filed in time. However, as an abundant

caution, the appellant has also filed a separate application

seeking for condonation of delay if any.

WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Authority may be

pleased to;

a. Call for the records pertaining to MR No. H3/2022-

23 dated 2.2.2023 carried out in the name of the

Respondent No.2 in respect of 17 guntas of land

bearing Sy.No.106/5 of Amruthahalli Bengaluru

North Taluk; and

b. Set aside MR bearing No.H3/2022-23 issued by the

1st respondent in respect of land measuring 17

guntas comprised in Sy.No.106/5.

PLACE: BANGALORE
DATE: ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT