IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT PETITION No.9357 OF 2017 (KLR – RR/SUR) BETWEEN:
MR. BALIYIL YOOSUF HAJI S/O MR. SHAIK AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT BALIYIL HOUSE ELANGOD POST PANOOR KANNUR KERALA NOW CAMPING AT NO.206/35, A.M.S. LAYOUT CHIKKABETTAHALLI VIDYARANYAPURAM BENGALURU – 560 097 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.B. MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE MULTISTORIED BUILDINGS K.R.CIRCLE DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DISTRICT BENGALURU – 560 009 3. THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU NORTH (ADDITIONAL) TALUK YELAHANKA BENGALURU – 560 064 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, HCGP) ******* THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRYAING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2009 PASSED IN CASE NO.RRT(2) NA.CR.89/2008-09 BY THE SPL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DISTRICT BENGALURU – 560 009 I.E., THE R-2 AT ANNEXURE – J AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL AND VOID AB INITIO AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: -
ORDER Learned Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.
2. The plea of the petitioner is for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 30.11.2009 passed in Case No.RRT(2) NA.CR.89/2008-09 by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, wherein the Special Deputy Commissioner having initiated proceedings has ordered to delete the name of the petitioner and to include the name of the Government in the said lands.
3. Various contentions have been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Primarily he contends that even in terms of the impugned order the notice was fixed on a conspicuous place of the land in question, but as per law, the notice would have to be first served on the petitioner and if that is not possible, the last course open to the authorities was to affix the notice on a conspicuous place of the land in question. In the case on hand, no such material is forthcoming to justify the same.
4. The learned High Court Government Pleader disputes the same.
5. On hearing the learned counsel, I’am of the view, appropriate relief requires to be granted.
6. The impugned order indicates affixing the notice on a conspicuous place of the land. It does not constitute sufficient service of notice of the proceedings to the petitioner. Hence without going into the merits of the impugned order, it requires to be set aside only on that ground.
7. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.11.2009 passed in Case No.RRT(2) NA.CR.89/2008-09 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to respondent No.2 - the Special Deputy Commissioner. On re-hearing the parties and considering the material that he may produce, the Special Deputy Commissioner to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Petitioner to appear before 2nd respondent – the Special Deputy Commissioner on 12.06.2017.
8. The learned Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.
SD/- JUDGE NG* CT: SN