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.20127 OF 2016(LR-RES) BETWEEN:
SHRI M.GOVINDA BHAT S/O ANANTHA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, R/AT MANILA VILLAGE, POST:MURVA, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI ANANTHARAJ BHAT, S/O M.GOVINDA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT MANILA VILLAGE, POST:MURVA, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI G.RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANGALURU SUB-DIVISION, MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, PIN: 575 001.
3. THASILDAR BANTWAL, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, PIN: 574 219.
4. SHRI K.BALAKRISHNA BHAT S/O LATE K.NARAYANA BHAT, MAJOR, KOOTELU HOUSE, MANILA VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT PIN:574 219. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3 SRI NARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR M/S.SUBBA RAO AND CO., ADVOCATES FOR R4) ***** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.12.2015 IN NO.L.R.Y.CR.50 OF 2015-16 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MANGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The plea of the petitioner is that he being a tenant, his application for grant of occupancy rights is pending consideration before the Land Tribunal, Bengaluru. After several rounds of litigation, the matter is still pending consideration.
2. Notwithstanding the same, the Assistant Commissioner by the impugned order dated 30.12.2015, vide Annexure-A, has ordered appointment of a receiver. Hence, he pleads that during the pendency of the appeal before the Land Tribunal, the Assistant Commissioner has no authority to do so.
3. The same is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
4. On hearing learned counsels, I’am of the considered view that appropriate relief requires to be granted.
5. Admittedly, the proceedings are pending before the Land Tribunal. Hence, it is the Land Tribunal which has authority to pass an order as it deems fit. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, the Assistant Commissioner has no authority to pass any order with respect to the land in question. Therefore, Annexure-A suffers from excessive jurisdiction. Consequently, the order dated 30.12.2015, vide Annexure- A, passed by Assistant Commissioner is quashed.
6. At the request of both learned counsels, the third respondent – Land Tribunal is directed to conclude the proceedings before it in Case. No.TNC 11616/1974-75, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
SD/- JUDGE JJ