Next > IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P. NO.1287/2016 C/W W.P.NO.1288/2016 (KLR-RES) IN W.P.NO.1287/2016: BETWEEN:
RAVINDRA ASHRAMA BY ITS CONVENOR J. BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O LATE JAMBUNATHA SWAMY SRI. SHANESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE HANUMANTHA NAGAR, BANGALORE.
(BY SRI. D.S. SHIVANAND, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT BANGALORE - 560 001.
2 . BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BBMP, CORPORATION BUILDINGS, HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE - 560 001 BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
...PETITIONER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R-1;
SMT. RAKSHITHA D.J, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNX-H DATED:24.05.2003 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN FAVOUR OF THE R-2 BY ISSUE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION AS THE CASE MAY BE.
W.P.NO.1288/2016: BETWEEN:
MAHALAKSHMI TEMPLE SEVA SAMITI CHARITABLE TRUST BY ITS CONVENOR B. GURURAJA RAO AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS S/O B. SRINIVASA RAO MAVALLIPURA VILLAGE HESARAGHATTA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.
(SRI. SHVANAND D.S, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT BANGALORE - 560 001.
2 . BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BBMP, CORPORATION BUILDINGS, HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE - 560 001 BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
...PETITIONER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI. K.N. PUTTEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNX-H DATED:24.05.2003 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN FAVOUR OF THE R-2 BY ISSUING OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION AS THE CASE MAY BE.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioners herein have called in question the correctness and legality of the order dated 27.04.2015 – Annexure-J passed in Appeal No.1338/2005 and 1339/2005 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, whereunder these two (2) writ petitioners, who had challenged the order dated 24.05.2003 passed by first respondent-Deputy Commissioner granting of land by way of lease to an extent of 100 acres in Sy.No.8 of Mavallipura Village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, in favour of second respondent had been rejected by confirming the grant.
2. I have heard the arguments of Sri.D.S.Shivanand, learned counsel appearing for petitioners, Sri.Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1-State, Smt.Rakshita D.J. and Sri.K.N.Putte Gowda, Learned Advocates appearing for respondent No.2 in these two writ petitions. Perused the records.
3. Petitioners claims to have been granted land measuring 40 acres in Sy.No.8 of Mavallipura Village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, by Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition on 06.03.1966 in R.C.No.2315/1964-Annexure-A. Khatha of said property is also said to have been mutated in the name of petitioner in M.R.No.5/1968-69 –Annexure-B and RTC extracts for the year 1972-73-Annexures-E to E-3 would reflect the same. Petitioner claims to have paid taxes as per Annexures-F and F-1.
4. The grievance of the petitioners is, land granted to them having not been acquired by State Government nor possession of said land having been taken from petitioners, name of petitioners which was reflected in the revenue records had been illegally deleted in the year 2000 without prior intimation to them and entry which came to be entered in Column Nos.9 as well as 12(2) to the effect ‘gomal’ is erroneous and liable to be set aside. Petitioners claim they were unaware of such entries having been carried out and they subsequently learnt about an order having been passed by first respondent on 25.04.2003-Annexure-H for leasing out land bearing Sy.No.8 of Mavallipura including land in question to an extent of 100 acres and same was in violation of principles of natural justice.
5. Petitioners being aggrieved by aforesaid order dated 24.05.2003 filed appeals before Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal Nos.1338/2005 and 1339/2005 questioning the same. Said appeals came to be dismissed by order dated 14.06.2012, which was questioned by them before this Court in W.P.Nos.18083/2012 c/w 20420/2012 (KLR-RES).
Said writ petitions came to be allowed by order dated 03.12.2013 by remitting the matter back to the tribunal for adjudication afresh. Liberty was also granted to both the parties to produce original records or certified copies of the documents and tribunal was directed to consider the same in accordance with law. On such order of remand being passed, tribunal took up the matter for consideration afresh and by impugned order dated 27.04.2015-Annexure-J appeals came to be dismissed. It came to be observed by the tribunal under the impugned orders that even after such remand order passed in writ petitions appellants did not file any additional documents. Hence, assailing the order of the tribunal as well as order dated 24.05.2003 petitioners are before this Court.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioners as well as Sri.R.Subramanya, learned Additional Advocate General appearing along with Sri.Y.D.Harsha for first respondent-State and Smt.D.J.Rakshitha and Sri.K.N.Putte Gowda appearing for respondent No.2 in respective writ petitions, it would emerge from the original records, which have been secured from the tribunal that, appellants namely writ petitioners had appeared before the tribunal in both the appeals on 05.02.2014 namely in Appeal Nos.1338/2005 and 1339/2005 and counsel for the appellants as permitted by this Court to produce additional documents had tendered 7 documents along with memo as reflected in the order sheet dated 05.02.2014. For immediate reference proceedings recorded by the tribunal on 05.02.2014 is extracted hereinbelow:
Next >