IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION No.39071/2016 c/w WP Nos.39072/2016, 39073/2016 and 39074/2016 (KLR RR/SUR) IN WP No.39071/2016 BETWEEN SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT MASTHENAHALLI VILLAGE, KAIWARA HOBLI CHINTAMANI TALUK CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT 562101. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. KUMAR J C, ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT, CHICKBALLAPURA-562101 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHICKBALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, CHICKBALLAPURA-562101 4. THE TAHSILDAR CHINTAMANI TALUK CHINTAMANI CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT-563123 5. SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT MASTENAHALLI VILLAGE, KAIWARA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT 562101. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RAFEEUNISA, HCGP FOR R1-R4, NOTICE NOT YET ORDERED IN R/O R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY R-2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN CASE NO.R.A.29/2014-15 DTD:6.6.2016 IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING OLD SY NO.54 AND NEW SY NO.54/P11 MEASURING 4 ACRES 38 GUNTAS OF MASTHENAHALLI VILLAGE, KAIWARA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKBALLAPURA DISTRICT ETC.
IN WP No.39072/2016 BETWEEN SMT.DYAVAMMA W/O. LATE BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT. MASTHENAHALLI VILLAGE, KAIWARA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT-562101. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. KUMAR J C, ADV.)
(BY SMT. RAFEEUNISA, HCGP FOR R1-R4, NOTICE NOT YET ORDERED IN R/O R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER AT ANNEX-A PASSED BY THE R-2 DTD.6.6.2016 IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING OLD SY.NO.36 AND NEW SY.NO.36/P23 MEASURING 4 ACRES 20 GUNTAS OF MASTHENAHALLI VILLAGE, KAIWARA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT ETC.
IN WP No.39073/2016 BETWEEN SRI. VENKATAPPA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, R/AT. MASTHENAHALLI VILLAGE, KAIWARA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT-562101. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. KUMAR J C, ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT, CHICKBALLAPURA-562101 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHICKBALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION CHICKBALLAPURA-562101 4. THE TAHSILDAR CHINTAMANI TALUK CHINTAMANI CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT 563123 5. SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT MASTENAHALLI VILLAGE, KAIWARA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT 562101. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RAFEEUNISA, HCGP FOR R1-R4, NOTICE NOT YET ORDERED IN R/O R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER AT ANNEX-A PASSED BY THE R-2 DTD.6.6.2016 IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING OLD SY.NO.54 AND NEW SY.NO.54/P12 MEASURING 4 ACRES 38 GUNTAS OF MASTHENAHALLI VILLAGE, KAIWARA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT ETC.
IN WP No.39074/2016 BETWEEN SMT V BHAGYAMMA D/O LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT MASTHENAHALLI VILLAGE, KAIWARA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT-562101 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. KUMAR J C, ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT, CHICKBALLAPURA-562101 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHICKBALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION CHICKBALLAPURA-562101 4. THE TAHSILDAR CHINTAMANI TALUK CHINTAMANI CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT 563123 5. SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT MASTENAHALLI VILLAGE, KAIWARA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT 562101. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RAFEEUNISA, HCGP FOR R1-R4, NOTICE NOT YET ORDERED IN R/O R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY R-2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN CASE NO.R.A.29/2014-15 DTD:6.6.2016 IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING OLD SY NO.36 AND NEW SY NO.36/P24 MEASURING 4 ACRES 20 GUNTAS OF MASTHENAHALLI VILLAGE, KAIWARA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKBALLAPURA DISTRICT ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ‘PRELIMINARY HEARING’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Govt. Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
2. In view of the common point involved in all these petitions, all these petitions are taken up for disposal by this common order.
3. The petitioner is before this court being aggrieved by the legality and correctness of the order dated 06.06.2016 whereby, the second respondent on a revision petition initiated by the fifth respondent in RA/29/2014-15 has not only rejected the revision petition but also further directed for cancellation of the mutation entry in respect of Survey No.54/P11 and thereby ordered cancellation of M.R. No.No.13/2013-14 and M.R. No.14/2013-14 along with other M.R. entries 32/2010-11, 11/2013-14.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the cancellation of the mutation entries whereby, the name of the petitioner came to be mutated in the revenue records is without notice or opportunity to the petitioner who is the affected person. He would contend that the impugned order passed by the second respondent is not only contrary to the settled principles of natural justice and the principle of audi- alteram-partem which mandates an opportunity to the affected person. It is also contrary to the statutory provisions. He would invite the attention of the court to the proviso to Section 136 of The Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (in short ‘the Act’) which prohibits passing of any order without affording an opportunity of hearing to the party who would be adversely affected by such order. The contention that no notice has been issued to the affected party is not denied by the learned High Court Govt. Pleader. In fact the learned High Court Govt. Pleader would fairly admit that no notice has been issued to the aggrieved party in compliance with the provisions of Section 136 of the Act. Hence, his submission is placed on record. The writ petition is allowed. The order at Annexure-A in respect of the petitioner alone is set-aside and the proceedings in so far as it relates to the petitioner alone is remitted back to the second respondent for consideration and disposal in accordance with law.
In view of the above observation, the writ petitions stand disposed off.
Sd/- JUDGE Chs* CT-HR