IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.26772/2012 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN:
SMT. KAMALA PRADHAN W/O TULASI NARAYANA PRADHAN AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.5, KAMALA NIVAS 4TH MAIN ROAD, 20TH CROSS N.S. PALYA, BANGALORE – 76 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.A. VISWANATHA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER EAST/ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE NORTH(A) BANGALORE DISTRICT 3RD FLOOR, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE BANGALORE – 560 001.
3. THE TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK ANEKAL – 562 106 BANGALORE DIST – 01.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R-1 TO 3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:29.04.2011 PASSED BY THE R-2 CANCEL THE RTC AND PAHANIES IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY NO.64/P11 MEASURING 3 ACRES OF BHUTANAHALLI VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK AND FORFEIT THE LAND TO THE GOVERNMENT AND ENTERED IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNMENT VIDE ANNX-A.
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 29.04.2011 whereunder second respondent has directed cancellation of entry made under M.R.No.16/1997-98 and has also directed for taking possession of lands to appropriate Government.
2. I have heard the arguments of Sri.Venkatesh R Bhagath on behalf of Sri.G.A.Vishwanatha Reddy, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA appearing for respondents. Perused the records.
3. Petitioner claims to have purchased the property measuring 3 acres in Sy.No.64/P11 situated at Bhutanahalli Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk from the legal representatives of Sri.Doddaiah, S/o.Dasana Bhovi, who is said to have been granted said land as he belonged to Bhovi Community and on his demise his wife and sons have sold the said property in favour of petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 14.07.1997-Annexure-B. It is further stated that on the basis of said sale deed revenue records came to be mutated to the name of petitioner in the year 1997-98.
4. The Special Deputy Commissioner – second respondent issued a show cause notice to petitioner on 20.11.2010-Annexure-G expressing doubt with regard to correctness of the document produced by the petitioner at the time of mutating revenue records and in order to satisfy himself that said mutation entry is not based on doubtful documents, as per the report of jurisdictional Tahsildar, called upon petitioner to produce the documents to substantiate his claim over the property in question.
5. Petitioner appeared before second respondent through his counsel. As could be seen from the order sheet at Annexure-H and as rightly contended by Sri. Venkatesh R. Bhagat, on several dates of hearing sitting was not held on account of second respondent being otherwise engaged in official duties. On 20.10.2010 when matter came to be called, petitioner herein and his Advocate, who had already filed vakalathnama, had remained absent. Though second respondent could have proceeded to adjudicate the claim by placing petitioner exparte, yet, in the interest of justice Court notice came to be issued to petitioner and thereafter, on 27.11.2010 counsel on behalf of respondent therein i.e., petitioner herein appeared and sought for time to produce the documents. Hence, matter came to be adjourned on several dates between 07.12.2010 to 31.03.2011 (8 hearing dates). Matter has been adjourned on the request made by counsel appearing for petitioner herein. On the ground of documents would be produced. Despite sufficient time granted petitioner had not produced the documents. Hence, as such impugned order came to be passed.
6. Sri.Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA appearing for respondents has made available copy of Government Order dated 17.03.1994, which would disclose that Sy.No.67 of at Bhutanahalli Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk having been declared as a minor forest under Section 35 of The Mysore Forest Regulation. It is also his contention that revenue records relating to Sy.No.67 have been mutated in the name of Forest Department wayback in the year 2009-10. His submission is placed on record. However, this Court refrains from expressing any opinion in this regard, inasmuch as, notification which has been produced by learned AGA relates to Sy.No.67 and also in the light of fact that petitioner’s claim with regard to possession is pending in civil proceedings.
7. Be that as it may. No fault can be found under the impugned order for the second respondent having proceeded to adjudicate the show cause issued to the petitioner. However, principles of natural justice command that opportunity ought to have been granted to petitioner. On this ground, matter deserves to be remanded back to second respondent for adjudicating the show cause notice dated 20.11.2010-Annexure-G afresh by directing second respondent to afford one more opportunity to petitioner, which would of course be on petitioner being put on terms.
8. In the light of aforesaid discussion, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed and order dated 29.04.2011-Annexure-A passed by second respondent is quashed.
(ii) Proceedings bearing No.RRT(1)(A)CR/13/2009-10 is remitted back to second respondent with a direction to adjudicate the same afresh.
(iii) Petitioner shall appear before second respondent on 26.08.2019 @ 3.00 p.m. without waiting for further notice.
(iv) No opinion is expressed with regard to possession as dispute relating to same is at large even according to petitioner in different proceedings.
SD/- JUDGE DR