IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA W.P.Nos.16692 – 16694/2018 (LR –RES) BETWEEN :
SRI K.S.HUCHAVEERAPPA S/O K.SIDDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.1750/2, 6TH MAIN ROAD, D BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560010 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI K.VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV.) AND :
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVANA, K.G. ROAD BENGALURU-560009 2. THE THASILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, KANDAYA BHAVANA, K.G. ROAD BENGALURU-560009 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS REVENUE DEPARTMENT REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.S.BUDIHAL, HCGP.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DATED 23.03.2018 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTIALLY QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.02.2018 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B HOLDING THE SAME AS ILLEGAL BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO DIRECT THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO RESTORE THE KATHA IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER AS STOOD EARLIER AS PER MR.NO.H3/2012- 13, IN RESPECT OF LAND IN SY.NO.18/18 MEASURING 42 ACRES 08 GUNTAS AND ADJACENT KHARAB LAND MEASURING 1 ACRE 10 GUNTAS IN ALL MEASURING 43 ACRES 18 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT UTTARAHALLI MANVARTHEKAVAL VILLAGE, UTTARAHALI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 30.01.2019, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, S.SUJATHA J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.2.2018 and 23.3.2018 passed by the respondent No.1 inter alia seeking a direction to the respondent No.2 to restore the katha in the name of the petitioner as stood earlier in terms of MR No.H3/2012-13, in respect of land in Sy.No.18/18 measuring 42 acres 8 guntas and adjacent kharab land measuring 1 acre 10 guntas in all measuring 43 acres 18 guntas situated at Uttarahalli, Manvarthekaval village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk.
2. Petitioner is claiming to be the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the land in question acquired through a registered sale deed dated 28.9.2012. It is the contention of the petitioner that in the year 2014, the 1st respondent has initiated suo motu proceedings under Section 83 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) for alleged violation of Section 79-A and B of the Act, while purchasing the said agricultural lands in Sy.No.18/18 by the petitioner and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to appear before the respondent No.1, pursuant to which, the petitioner appeared along with the relevant documents to show that there is no contravention of Section 79-A and B of the Act as alleged. The respondent No.1 after careful perusal of the documents, being convinced, dropped the proceedings by order dated 18.6.2014. The unilateral decision taken by respondent No.1 vide order dated 6.2.2018 to enter the Government’s name in column No.9 and 12(2) of RTC has come to his knowledge only on the application made by him on 16.02.2018 to get the RTC relating to the land in question. Accordingly, an application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 was filed by the petitioner to recall the order dated 06.02.2018 before the respondent No.1 and the same came to be rejected by order dated 23.03.2018.
3. Being aggrieved by the proceedings initiated by the respondent No.1 pursuant to dropping of proceedings initiated under Section 83 of the Act on 18.6.2014 and rejection of the application for recalling the order dated 06.02.2018, the petitioner is before this court.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 6.2.2018 passed without issuing notice to the petitioner is void ab initio and the same deserves to be set aside. It was argued that the respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to re-initiate proceedings under Section 83 of the Act pursuant to dropping of the proceedings on 18.6.2014. It was submitted that the respondent No.1 becomes functus officio, no power is vested with the revenue authorities to review the orders. Hence, the order impugned is ex-facie illegal for want of jurisdiction. It was thus argued that alternative remedy available under the Act is not a bar to invoke the writ jurisdiction in the light of the settled principles of law in as much as the order impugned being passed without jurisdiction and hit by the principles of natural justice.
5. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents supporting the impugned order submitted that writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised in view of the alternative and efficacious remedy available under the Act. It was argued that the respondent No.1 while dropping the proceedings under Section 83 of the Act, by order dated 18.6.2014, has specifically observed that if any of the information furnished by the respondent is found to be false/fake, the said order would automatically stand cancelled. In view of the said observations made by the respondent No.1, the said authority was not precluded to reopen the proceedings in as much as the violation of Section 79-A and B of the Act are concerned.
6. On the query made by the Court, learned Government Pleader has placed the original records before the Court and submitted that notice dated 22.9.2017 was issued to the petitioner subsequent to dropping of the proceedings initiated under Section 83 of the Act. The said notice was dispatched through registered post acknowledgement due on 7.10.2017. The postal cover was returned unserved on 9.10.2017 with a postal endorsement that no such person found in the said address. Again another notice dated nil was issued calling upon the petitioner to appear before the respondent No.1 on 29.11.2017. The same was handed over to the Revenue Inspector on 21.11.2017 for effecting service. Again a notice dated nil was issued calling upon the petitioner to appear on 10.1.2018 and the same was handed over to the Revenue Inspector for effecting service on 2.1.2018.
Final orders were passed on 6.2.2018 forfeiting the land in question to the Government under Sections 79-A & B and 80 of the Act. Petitioner filed an application to recall the said order and the same came to be rejected on 23.3.2018.
7. The notices said to have been issued calling upon the petitioner to appear on 29.11.2017 and 10.1.2018, the service to be effected through Revenue Inspector do not figure in the order sheet maintained in the record. There is no whisper about the said notices served on the petitioner through the Revenue Inspector. Thus, it is clear that no notice was served on the petitioner before passing the order on 06.02.2018. Copy of the notices available on record do not refer to the earlier order passed by the respondent No.1 on 18.6.2014. These notices are structured as the fresh notices calling upon the petitioner to appear before the respondent No.1 Authority along with the documents for the alleged violation of Sections 79-A & B and 80 of the Act. It is hardly required to be stated that the quasi judicial authority is not empowered to reopen the proceedings or review the orders subsequent to taking a decision in the matter. The quasi judicial authority becomes functus officio immediately on passing of the order. Even assuming the arguments of the learned Government Pleader has to be accepted in as much as the order passed on 18.6.2014 under Section 83 of the Act that if any of the information furnished by the petitioner is found to be false or fake, the said order would stand automatically cancelled, the notice should reflect, such information furnished by the petitioner was found to be false/fake and the order dated 18.6.2014 had got cancelled automatically. In the absence of such notice issued to the petitioner subsequent to the order passed on 18.08.2014, the order impugned passed on 6.2.2018 is vitiated in law.
8. It is well settled law that there is no bar to entertain a writ petition de hors the alternative and efficacious remedy available when the principles of natural justice are violated, or for want of jurisdiction, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure.
9. In view of the impugned order dated 06.02.2018 is held to be unjustifiable, the order impugned dated 23.03.2018 does not survive for consideration.
10. For the foregoing reasons and observations, the orders impugned are not sustainable and deserves to be set aside.
In the result, writ petitions are allowed setting aside the impugned orders dated 23.3.2018 and 06.02.2018 at Annexures-A and B respectively. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to initiate proceedings, if any of the information furnished by the petitioner is found to be false or fake as observed by the respondent No.1, while dropping the proceedings initiated under Section 83 of the Act.
Dvr:
Sd/- JUDGE