IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL W.P.No.33108/2017 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN SMT.RATHNAMMA W/O LATE B.RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NO.156/1, IN SY NO.96, 5TH CROSS, RACHENAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 077. ... PETITIONER (By Sri JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL, SR.COUNSEL FOR Sri M.SHIVAPRAKASH, ADV.) AND 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001 3. THE COMMISSIONER SURVEY AND RECORDS K.R.CIRCLE BANGALORE-560 001.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT KHANDAYA BHAVANA BANGALORE-560 009 5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION, KHANDAYA BHAVAN BANGALORE-560 009.
6. THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE EAST TALUK K.R.PURAM BANGALORE-560 038. ... RESPONDENTS (By Smt.PRAMODINI KISHAN, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN RESPECT OF LAND MEASURING 3 ACRES IN SY.NO.96 OF RACHENAHALLI VILLAGE VIDE DTD.25.6.1970 FROM THE OFFICE OF TAHASILDAR, BANGALORE EAST AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents.
2. A short question arises for consideration in this writ petition. Hence, with the consent of learned counsel for both parties, matter is taken up for final disposal.
3. Petitioner has filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru Sub-Division, Bengaluru, in LN.D(Appeal)No.5/2016-17. The said appeal is directed against the order dated 18.05.2016 passed by the Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk. The Tahsildar has ordered for forfeiture of the land to the Government and for initiating penal action against the petitioner under Section 192-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The Tahsildar has found that there was no record to show that the land was granted in favour of B.Ramaiah, predecessor of petitioner herein. Petitioner has taken a contention before the Assistant Commissioner that the Tahsildar had proceeded on an erroneous assumption that records pertaining to the land were not available; indeed, the records pertaining to the grant were traced from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara, as is evident from Annexure-T – communication dated 20.05.2016 issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara District.
4. The appeal was registered by the Assistant Commissioner and an interim order of stay was granted on 31.05.2016 till the next date of hearing. The case was adjourned to 05.10.2016. This is evident from Annexure-X – proceedings sheet maintained by the Assistant Commissioner. Subsequently, matter has been adjourned from time to time. Most of the time the case has been adjourned on the ground that the Assistant Commissioner was otherwise engaged. Interim order granted on 31.05.2016 has not been extended. As a result, petitioner is apprehending some adverse action against him. It is in this background, petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to respondent No.5 to continue the interim order granted till the disposal of the appeal and in the alternative, laying challenge to the order passed by the Tahsildar.
5. Petitioner has availed the statutory remedy of appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. As the Assistant Commissioner had initially granted interim stay, keeping in mind the nature of direction issued against the petitioner by the Tahsildar, the Assistant Commissioner ought to have extended the interim order until disposal of the case. If interim order is not extended and in the meanwhile, order passed by the Tahsildar is implemented, it would result in irretrievable situation prejudicially affecting the rights of the petitioner in respect of immovable property. Apart from the same, she would be subjected to prosecution. Therefore, in my view, interim order granted by the Assistant Commissioner deserves to be extended till the disposal of the appeal before him and the Assistant Commissioner has to dispose of the appeal expeditiously in accordance with law after providing opportunity to all the parties.
6. Hence, the writ petition is allowed in part. There shall be an interim order of stay of Annexure-R – order passed by the Tahsildar till the disposal of the appeal by the Assistant Commissioner.
Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within three weeks from today.
Sd/- JUDGE PKS