IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.10573/2012 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN SRI GUNDAPPA S/O ERACHIKKAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT SALUHUNASE VILLAGE, KAGGALIPURA DHAKLE, UDAYAPURA POST, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK ... PETITIONER (BY SRI K.SURYAPRAKASH RAO, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SMT. VENKATAMMA W/O LATE MUNISHAMI @ MUNISHAMAIAH SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HER ONLY SON MAHADEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT SALUHUNASE VILLAGE, KAGGALIPURA DHAKLE, UDAYAPURA POST, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION BANGALORE - 560 009 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT BANGALORE ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.S.MAHANTESH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOs.2 AND 3 RESPONDENT No.1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT / ORDER / DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER i.e., ANNEXURE ‘A’ DATED 28.02.2012 PASSED IN REVISION PETITION No.241/2010-11 ON THE FILE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DISTRICT, AND QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER i.e., ANNEXURE ‘B’ DATED 23.07.2010 PASSED IN R.A.(S).24/2008-09 ON THE FILE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE SOUTH SUB- DIVISION, BANGALORE, AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. Petitioner herein has sought for quashing of the order dated 28.02.2012 vide Annexure ‘A’ to the petition passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, in Revision Petition No.241/2010-11, wherein the order dated 23.07.2010 vide Annexure ‘B’ to the petition passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division, Bengaluru, in Appeal No.RA(S).24/2008-09 has been confirmed.
3. The petitioner is the son of Erachikkaiah. It is stated that the petitioner’s father is the absolute owner of the land measuring to an extent of 02 Acres 05 guntas in Sy. No.237/1 situate at Kaggalipura village, Uttarahalli hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, having purchased the same from Smt. Narasamma under registered sale deed dated 21.06.1969. Subsequently, mutation entry vide M.R. No.9/1992-93 was effected in the name of Erachikkaiah in respect of the said land.
4. According to the petitioner, his grandfather, namely, Kempa Chikkaiah, was registered as kadim tenant under Section 4 of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, in respect of the land measuring to an extent of 04 Acres 11 guntas in Sy. No.237 (Sy. No.237/1) situate at Kaggalipura village by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams, Bangalore, Kolar and Tumkur Districts, as per endorsement No.176/302. His grandfather during his life time had not alienated any portion of the said property in favour of any person. It is stated that the said property was allotted to the share of the petitioner in a family partition.
5. When the matter stood thus, Smt. Venkatamma, the mother of Mahadevaiah (respondent No.1 herein), initiated proceedings in RRT.CR.129/2005-06 before the Tahasildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, claiming that her husband, Sri Munishami @ Munishamaiah, during his lifetime had purchased an extent of 01 Acre 05 guntas in Sy. No.237/1 situate at Kaggalipura village from one Eeranagappa under registered sale deed dated 04.06.1962, however, the revenue authorities had not effected mutation entry in favour of her husband in respect of the said land. She alleged that one S.K. Veerachikkaiah @ Eerachikkaiah claiming himself to be the owner of the said land tried to interfere with her possession and enjoyment of the said land based on the entries in the revenue records. Hence, she made an application before the Tahasildar to rectify the mistake and to effect mutation in respect of 01 Acre 05 guntas of land in Sy. No.237/1 in her name by virtue of the sale deed dated 04.06.1962 executed in favour of her husband, Munishami, by Eeranagappa. The Tahasildar rejected the said application stating that khata of the land had already been effected in the name of Sri S.K. Veerachikkaiah @ Eerachikkaiah.
6. Smt. Venkatamma being aggrieved by the said order of Tahasildar, filed an appeal in R.A.(S).24/2008-09 under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, assailing the order of Tahasildar in proceedings No.RRT.CR.129/2005-06 and to set aside the mutation, which was effected initially in the name of Eerachikkaiah vide M.R. No.175/82-83 and subsequently in the name of Sri Kempachikkaiah vide M.R. No.9/92-93 in respect of the land measuring to an extent of 01 Acre 05 guntas in Sy. No.237/1 situate at Kaggalipura village.
7. The Assistant Commissioner, by his order dated 23.07.2010 vide Annexure ‘B’ to the petition, allowed the appeal in R.A.(S).24/2008-09 by setting aside the mutation effected in the name of Sri Eerachikkaiah vide M.R. No.175/82-83 and subsequently, in the name of Sri Kempachikkaiah, son of Eerachikkaiah vide M.R. No.9/92-93 in respect of the land measuring to an extent of 01 Acre 05 guntas in Sy. No.237/1 situate at Kaggalipura village. Further, the Assistant Commissioner has directed Special Tahasildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, to take necessary action to effect the khata of the land measuring to an extent of 01 Acre 05 guntas in Sy. No.237/1 in the name of Sri Munishami @ Munishamaiah by virtue of registered sale deed dated 04.06.1962 and since Sri Munishamaiah was no more, the inheritance khata of the said land was ordered to be made in the name of Smt. Venkatamma, wife of late Munishami @ Munishamaiah, in accordance with law and to make necessary entries in the revenue records.
8. The said order of the Assistant Commissioner was the subject matter of challenge in Revision Petition No.241/2010-11 preferred under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, by the petitioner herein before the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District. It is stated that during the pendency of the said revision petition, Smt. Venkatamma died and his son, Sri Mahadevaiah, was brought on record. It is further stated that the petitioner herein had not impleaded one Sri S.K. Veerachikkaiah @ Sri Erachikkaiah in the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner as he had not sought any relief against him.
9. The Deputy Commissioner, by his order dated 28.02.2012 (Annexure ‘A’ to the petition), dismissed the said revision petition while confirming the order dated 23.07.2010 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub- Division, Bengaluru, in R.A.(S).24/2008-09.
10. During the pendency of this petition, on 25.02.2019, learned counsel for the petitioner filed memo along with copy of Register No.VIII in respect of the land bearing Sy. No.237 measuring 04 Acres 11 guntas and copy of the order dated 14.08.1958 passed by Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams. Today, he has filed memo along with copy of the sale deed dated 21.06.1969 executed by Smt. Narasamma in favour of the petitioner’s father, namely, Sri Erachikkaiah.
11. According to the petitioner, the order dated 23.07.2010 was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division, Bengaluru, behind his back as respondent No.1 in appeal No.R.A.(S).24/2008-09 before the Assistant Commissioner, namely, Sri S.K. Veerachikkaiah @ Eerachikkaiah had nothing to do with the land bearing Sy. No.237/1 belonging to the petitioner and he had not informed the petitioner about the pendency of the said appeal. It is the further case of the petitioner that his father, who is a permanent resident of Mukkodlu village of Vaddarapalya dhakale, Uttarahalli hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, was also not served with notice. The said order of Assistant Commissioner was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No.241/2010-11. The same is under challenge in this writ petition.
12. In this petition, the first respondent – Sri Mahadevaiah is duly served and he has remained unrepresented. So far as respondent Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, they are represented by learned Additional Government Advocate.
13. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the material on record.
14. When the entire material available on record is looked into, it clearly discloses that with reference to the very same land i.e., land measuring to an extent of 04 Acres 11 guntas in Sy. No.237/1, petitioner’s grandfather, Kempa Chikkaiah, had secured an order of re-grant from the Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams under the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954. In addition to that, the petitioner’s father, Erachikkaiah had perfected his title to the land measuring to an extent of 02 Acres 05 guntas in Sy. No.237/1 as he had purchased the said land from one Smt. Narasamma under registered sale deed dated 21.06.1969. It the contention of the petitioner herein that neither himself nor his father was served with notice in the proceedings in R.A. (S).24/2008-09 before the Assistant Commissioner. It is seen that though the said documents were placed before the Deputy Commissioner, the said authority has not looked into the same and has proceeded to pass the impugned order, which calls for interference.
15. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. The order dated 28.02.2012 vide Annexure ‘A’ to the petition passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, in Revision Petition No.241/2010-11 confirming the order dated 23.07.2010 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-division, in Appeal No.R.A.(S).24/2008-09, is hereby quashed. While doing so, respondent No.3 herein – Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, is directed to revive the proceedings in Revision petition No.241/2010-11, give notice to the petitioner herein (petitioner in revision petition) as well as Sri Mahadevaiah, (respondent No.1 in revision petition) son of Smt. Venkatamma, and thereafter, to consider and dispose of the said revision petition in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
16. Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to file memo of appearance within two weeks from today.
Sd/- JUDGE sma