IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL W.P.No.6461/2017 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN SRI G.N.MOHAN RAJU S/O G.S.N RAJU AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT KHAJIPALEM POST PITTANAVARIPALYAM BAPATLA TALUK, GUNTUR DIST., ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY HIS GPA HOLDER-
SRI R.DINESH SON OF SRI B.RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.117-120, FIRST FLOOR, 4TH BLCOK, GREEN LEAF LAYOUT, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 034. ... PETITIONER (By Sri SANTOSH S.GOGI, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY THE REVENUE SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-01.
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT BANGALORE, KANDAYABHAVAN BANGALORE-01.
3. SMT. PRAMILA S.H.
D/O S V HANUMANTHAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.72/32 80FT ROAD, 4TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-34.
4. V.VENUGOPALA REDDY S/O V.VENKATA REDDY AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, R/AT NO.110/2, A-3 VARS SRESIDENCY, 2ND FLOOR, NGEF LAYOUT, C.V.RAMAN NAGAR, BANGALORE-560093.
5. V.NARSIMHA REDDY, S/O M.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/AT PULIKALLU VILLAGE, PENUMUR MANDAL CHITTOR DIST.
6. SRI G.DASARATHA REDDY S/O G.PAPI REDDY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT AVALAHALLI VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE EAST ALUK BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri T.S.MAHANTESH, AGA FOR R1 & R2; Sri ANIL CHINIWAL, ADV. FOR R3-R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DT:25.8.2012 PASSED BY THE R-2 THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE EAST TALUK AND ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN [ANNEXURE-ZP] AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. Petitioner is the purchaser of land bearing Old Sy.
No.12, New Sy. Nos.67 to 71 of Avalahalli village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. According to the petitioner, the said lands were purchased under two sale deeds dated 19.05.1995 and 19.11.2003 from his vendors Krishna Reddy and Dasharath Reddy. The land in question was earlier purchased in Darkasth on 14.09.1940 by G.Srinivas Murthy. From him, the lands changed several hands and ultimately petitioner purchased the same.
2. During the year 2005, the Tahsildar appears to have submitted a report addressed to the Deputy Commissioner stating that the lands in question were part of a tank bed. Based on the said report, enquiry was initiated by the Deputy Commissioner. Petitioner was a party to the said proceedings along with other neighbouring land owners. By order dated 19.12.2007, the Deputy Commissioner directed the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division, Bengaluru, to examine the nature of transaction under which G.Srinivas Murthy claimed to have become owner of the property vide Darkasth sale dated 14.09.1940 by providing opportunity to all the parties. This order is produced at Annexure-ZL.
3. Thereafter, the matter was seized by the Assistant Commissioner. When the matter was pending before the Assistant Commissioner, the impugned order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 25.08.2012 vide Annexure-ZP. By the said order, the Deputy Commissioner has recorded a finding that lands in question were part of tank bed, and therefore, there was no provision for grant of the said lands in favour of anybody. Hence, he ordered for cancellation of the entries in the revenue records in the name of the owners of the property, with a direction to take over the same to the State Government. It is this order that is called in question in this writ petition.
4. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner has proceeded to pass the impugned order without arraying the petitioner herein as party respondent. Petitioner was arrayed as respondent no.4 in the earlier proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner. When the said proceedings were pending on remand before the Assistant Commissioner, the impugned order has been passed. It is apparent that petitioner has not been heard in the matter. Therefore, there is violation of principles of natural justice. An important right with regard to the immovable property which the petitioner claims to have acquired by virtue of the sale deed of the year 1995 is sought to be taken away without hearing the petitioner. Therefore, the matter requires interference by this Court.
5. Hence, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Matter is remitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, with a direction to notify the petitioner and all other interested persons, provide them an opportunity of hearing and thereafter pass a reasoned order.
6. At this stage, it is submitted that this Court had granted an interim order directing the respondents not to evict the petitioner from Sy. No.12 (Khata No.54) (presently new Sy. Nos.67 to 71) and with a further direction to the respondents not to commence any construction or cultivation activity in the lands in question. The said interim order granted shall continue till the disposal of the matter by the Deputy Commissioner.
Sd/- JUDGE KK