IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.35485/2017 (KLR – RR/SUR) BETWEEN:
SMT.K.KALAVATHI W/O A.RAVI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O NO.15, 2ND CROSS, SHARADAMBA TEMPLE ROAD, JALAHALLI, BENGALURU. ... PETITIONER [BY SMT.RATNA N. SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADV.] AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-01 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-I NORTH, SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU DIST., BENGALURU-01 3. THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU NORLTH (ADDL) TALUK YELAHANKA UPA NAGARA BENGALURU-560063 …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI Y.D.HARSHA, AGA.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.08.2015 PASSED BY R-2 VIDE ANNEX-P.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioner has assailed the order dated 11.08.2015 passed by the respondent No.2 at Annexure-P to the writ petition, inter alia, seeking a direction to the respondent No.3 to restore the entries in the revenue records pertaining to Sy.No.76/4 measuring 2 acres situated at Chikkajala, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru.
2. Petitioner is claiming to be the absolute owner in possession of the property in question. It is contended that the mother of the petitioner Smt.Sharadamma, w/o N.Kempanna purchased the said land in question as per the registered sale deed dated 29.04.1992 and thereafter she has gifted the said land to the petitioner as per the registered gift deed dated 28.07.2001 and the revenue entries are effected in her name. However, on the application made by her for the RTC, she was shocked to see the entries in the column Nos.9 and 12(2) as ‘Government’ and thereafter, came to know about the proceedings in Case No.N(A) CR 23/10-11 before the respondent No.2, wherein an exparte order was passed, directing the respondent No.3 to delete the name of the petitioner and enter the name as ‘Government’ in all the revenue records. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel Smt. Ratna N. Shivayogimath, appearing for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition submitted that the order impugned indicates that the case was called on 03.01.2014, 03.03.2014, 12.03.2015, 28.04.2015, 07.07.2015 and 11.08.2015. On these occasions, the respondent therein (petitioner herein) remained absent. It is further observed that despite the service of notice and adequate opportunity provided, the respondent therein did not choose to appear before the authority and substantiate his case by producing the documents supporting the entries in the revenue records. Drawing the attention of this Court to the order sheet of the proceedings of the respondent No.2, she has submitted that the matter was not listed on those particular days referred to, by the respondent No.2 in the order impugned. Through on 09.07.2012, it was ordered to issue further notice to the petitioner herein, no such notice was issued and the proceedings were concluded exparte much against the principles of audi alteram partem without calling for the original records. Hence, submits that the order impugned being passed without hearing the petitioner and much against the principles of natural justice is void ab initio and requires to be set aside.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents fairly submits on instructions that no notice was issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner before passing the order impugned herein and has no objections to remand the matter to the Special Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record.
6. Firstly, it is evident that the order impugned herein is passed without service of notice to the petitioner herein and hence, liable to be set aside as hit by the principles of natural justice. Secondly, the dates referred to, by the Special Deputy Commissioner in the order impugned does not tally with the certified copy of the order sheet placed on record. Thirdly, the subject matter of the dispute in the proceedings before the Special Deputy Commissioner was pertaining to the lands in Sy.No.76/P4 measuring 2 acres situated at Chikkajala village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru, whereas the order impugned refers to the land in Sy.No.89/P7 situated at Chikkajala, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Addl. Taluk, regarding the letter of the Tahasildar received to ascertain the ground realities of the matter.
7. For the reasons aforesaid, the order impugned cannot be sustained. Hence, the following ORDER Writ petition is allowed and the impugned order at Annexure-P is quashed. The proceedings are restored on the file of the Special Deputy Commissioner, North Sub-division, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru for re-consideration.
The Special Deputy Commissioner-1 shall re-consider the same in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and interested parties .
The petitioner shall appear before the Special Deputy Commissioner on 11.02.2019, without expecting any further notice.
The Special Deputy Commissioner shall take a decision in an expedite manner.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE NC/PMR