The Karnataka High Court on Friday stayed the present Special Deputy Commissioner-2 (South Division) of Bengaluru Urban district allowing the claim of two women over 285 acres 9 guntas, worth several crores of rupees, in survey number 137 of B.M. Kaval village in Kengeri hobli by reversing the orders passed by his predecessors in 2003 and 2005.
The interim order was passed on a petition filed by the State government, the Revenue Secretary and the tahsildar, questioning the correctness of the process and the order passed by the Special DC-2.
Justice G. Narendar stayed the order passed on October 23, 2018 by the Special DC-2 Rangappa, who held that 310 acres and 18 guntas in B.M. Kaval village are not government land, as they are Hiduvali lands (agricultural land held by private persons), and allowed the claim of ownership of these lands by Motamma and Nagamma to the extent of 285 acres and 9 guntas.
The two women claim to be the legal heirs of Erappa, who was said to have purchased the 310 acres and 18 guntas in 1940.
The land has a chequered history of litigation over the past 18 years. The then special tahsildar, based on a complaint of illegal acquisition of these lands by private persons using bogus documents, in 2001 reported to the government that these lands are under the illegal possession of private persons.
In 2003, the then Special DC exercised his power under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and ordered cancellation of entries made in favour of industrialist K.L. Shrihari Khoday and his family members who claimed to have purchased the land during 1968-69.
The Khoday family contested this in the High Court and the matter went back to the Special DC who, in 2005, passed a fresh order holding that they were government land. The HC, in 2007, dismissed the petition of the Khoday family against this order and asked them to approach the civil court where they filed a suit.
Motamma and Nagamma moved the High Court in 2007 laying claim to the land, but lost the case in 2011.
The Khoday family had approached the High Court again in 2010 against the Special DC’s action of holding an enquiry on right over these lands when their suit was pending. The court asked the Special DC to first decide over jurisdiction to hold the enquiry and then decide the rights
The Special DC had taken up the claims made by the Khoday family, and Motamma and Nagamma, and held that the two women submitted documents in support of their claims, but the Khoday family and the tahsildar had failed to submit documents.
