IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.NO. 20809/2019 c/w W.P.NOs.21887-21890/2019(KLR-RES) IN W.P.NO.20809/2019: BETWEEN:
HEWLETT PACKARD (INDIA) SOFTWARE OPERATION PRIVATE LIMITED HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.192, WHITEFIELD ROAD MAHADEVAPURA BANGALORE – 560 048, INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. K.L. PRASANNA.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. ARJUN SARATHY V, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. TASHILDHAR - BANGALORE EAST TALUK OFFICE, DIESEL SHED ROAD KRISHNARAJAPURAM BANGALORE – 560 036.
2. SUNIL CHAJED S/O LATE H. DEVICHAND AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS # 85/1, DVG ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE – 560 004.
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA D C OFFICE, BANGALORE DIVISION, K.G. ROAD NEAR DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI SAMPANGI RAMA NAGARA BENGALURU – 560 009 (REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, URBAN DISTRICT) ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R-1 & R-3; SRI. GIRISHA V, ADVOATE FOR C/R-2;
SRI. JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. B.R. PRASANNA, ADVOATE FOR R-2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:22.02.2019 PASSED BY R-1 VIDE ANNX-A AND DECLARE THAT, IN VIEW OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY BEING SITUATED WITHIN BBMP LIMITS, R-1 AND 3 ARE BARRED FROM INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964.
IN W.P.NOs.21887-21890/2019: BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. KRISHANMURTHY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O SHRI. VENKATARAMANAPPA H.N R/AT NO.6, 1ST MAIN WHITE FIELD ROAD B. NARAYANAPURA BESIDES H.P. CAMPUS DOORAVANI NAGAR POST BANGALORE – 560 016 2. SMT. GAYATHRI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS W/O SHRI. MAHADEVAIAH R/AT NO.3, 1ST MAIN WHITE FIELD ROAD B. NARAYANAPURA BESIDES H.P. CAMPUS DOORAVANI NAGAR POST BANGALORE – 560 016.
3. SMT. J.R. SHASHIKALA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS W/O SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR R/AT “SRI. VENKATESHWARA NILAYA” # 1797/A, 7TH MAIN ROAD BLOCK BANGALORE – 560 010.
4. SHRI. P. APPUKUTTA PANICKAR AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS S/O LATE K. PADMANABHAN NAIR R/AT “JANAKI NIVAS” VIVEKANANDA STREET UDAYANAGAR DOORAVANI NAGAR POST BANGALORE – 560 016.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAVEENDRAN P, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGLAORE – 560 001.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT D.C. OFFICE, K.G. ROAD NEAR DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE AMBEDKAR VEEDHI SAMPANGI RAMA NAGARA BENGALURU KARNATAKA – 560 009.
3. TAHSILDAR BANGALORE EAST TALUK TALUK OFFICE, K.R. PURAM DIESEL SHED ROAD KRISHNARAJAPURAM BANGALORE – 560 036.
4. SRI. SUNIL CHAJED AGED ABOUT 48 YERS S/O SHRI. H. DEVICHAND R/AT NO.85/1, DVG ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE – 560 004.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI. GIRISHA V, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-4) THESE W.Ps. ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:22.02.2019 PASSED BY THE R-3 IN CASE NUMBER LND:(KRP)CD 10/2016-17 AS PER ANNEXURE-A BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R These two writ petitions are taken up together for consideration since order under challenge dated 22.02.2019 is one and the same. Respondent No.2 in W.P.No.20809/2019, who is fourth respondent in connected matter W.P.No.21887-890/2019 submitted a representation to the Deputy Commissioner to clear unauthorized occupations in land bearing Sy.No.91/1A of B.Narayanapura Village, Krishnaraja Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore, claiming to be the owner of said property. Pursuant to said representation, jurisdictional Tahsildar namely, Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk, initiated proceedings and in the said proceedings petitioners herein have been arraigned as respondents. On receiving of objections filed, impugned order came to be passed whereunder Assistant Director of Land Records, Bangalore East Taluk, has been requested to take steps to fix the boundaries in respect of land bearing Sy.No.91/1A measuring to an extent of 1.04.08 guntas.
2. I have heard the arguments of Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner in W.P.No.20809/2019, Sri.P.Raveendran, learned counsel appearing for petitioners in W.P.Nos.21887-890/2019, Sri.Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3, Sri. Girisha V, learned counsel appearing for caveator/respondent and Sri.Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.B.R.Prasanna for respondent No.2 in W.P.No.20809/2019 for contesting respondent.
3. Petitioners are claiming to be the owners of various portions of property bearing Sy.No.91/1 and while filing objection before the Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk, in the proceedings initiated by him at the behest and instance of contesting respondent, they have specifically contended that land in question is a converted land and jurisdictional Tahsildar does not have jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of Section 104 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, particularly in the background of said land having been converted from agricultural to non agricultural purpose and taxes having been paid to Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike vide statement of objections filed by writ petitioner (W.P.No.20809/2018) vide Annexure-G. However, under the impugned order said aspect has not been adjudicated. It is trite law when issue regarding jurisdiction being raised it would be incumbent upon said authority to adjudicate said contention or plea, inasmuch as, in the event of authority were to arrive at a conclusion that it does not have jurisdiction, question of examining the claim on merits would not arise. On the other hand, if issue of jurisdiction is answered in the negative then necessarily aggrieved party would have a right to challenge the same. It is in this background, when the objections filed by petitioner, which is at Annexure-G is perused, it would clearly indicate that issue of invoking Section 104 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, has been raised by petitioner herein vide paragraph 11 contending interalia that said proceedings is without jurisdiction. This has been reiterated even in the written arguments filed as per Annexure-H before Tahsildar and yet, said authority has not examined the issue of jurisdiction and has proceeded to direct the ADLR to measure the lands. On this other ground itself namely, issue of jurisdiction having not been adjudicated by Tahsildar though pressed into, impugned order cannot be sustained.
4. Though learned Advocates appearing for parties made an attempt to canvas arguments on main, this Court is not inclined to entertain the same, inasmuch as, issue of jurisdiction would go to the root of the matter and as such, it would be incumbent upon the Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk, to adjudicate said issue at the first instance and then proceed to adjudicate the matter on merits, if required.
5. For the reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) W.P.Nos.20809/2019 c/w 21887-
890/2019 are allowed.
(ii) Order dated 22.02.2019 passed by first respondent in LND:(KRP) CD 10/2016-17 – Annexure-A is hereby quashed and matter is remitted back to Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk, to examine the issue regarding jurisdiction and then proceed to adjudicate the claim on merits, if it warrants and without being influenced by his earlier order, which has since been quashed by this Court as noticed herein above.
(iii) Said exercise shall be expeditiously undertaken by first respondent in W.P.No.20809/2019 and at any rate within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
SD/- JUDGE DR