IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION No.29865/2014 (LB-RES) BETWEEN 1. SRI. MUNISHAMAPPA S/O LATE BACHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 2. SRI ANJINAPPA S/O LATE BACHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 3. SRI BALAKRISHNA S/O LATE BACHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 4. SMT PREMA D/O LATE BACHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 5. SRI SOMASHANKARA S/O LATE BACHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 6. SRI RAMESH S/O LATE BACHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT APPAJIPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
(BY SRI K SHIVASHANKAR, ADV.) ... PETITIONERS AND 1. SAMETHANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPTD.BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER SAMETHANAHALLI, ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562114.
2. THE HOSAKOTE TALUKA EXECUTIVE OFFICER (EO) NEAR MINI-VIDHANA SOUDHA, NEAR OLD BUS STAND, HOSAKOTE TOWN-562114, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
3. SMT LAKSHMAMMA W/O VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NADAVATHI VILLAGE HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562114.
(BY SRI M.S.DEVARAJU, ADV. FOR R1 & R2, SRI SADASIVAREDDY ASSTS., FOR R3.) ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT.19.4.2007, PASSED BY THE R2, HOSAKOTE TQ. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HOSAKOTE PRODUCED AT ANN-A, IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY BERING KANESHUMARI NO.146/11, MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF EAST TO WEST 40 FEET & NORTH TO SOUTH 40 FEET SITUATED AT NADAVATHI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TQ. BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ‘PRELIMINARY HEARING’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for contesting respondent No.3.
2. It is submitted that the land comprised in Kaneshumari No.146/2011 originally belongs to one Bajjaiah. After his demise, the property fell to the share of his daughter namely Bachamma, the mother of the petitioners. That pursuant to the same, Khatha was also changed in the name of Bachamma and necessary changes have been carried out in the revenue register. It is submitted that respondent No.3, who is none other than sister of Bachamma initiated the proceedings before respondent No.2 in appeal No.8/2006. The respondent No.2-the Executive Officer adjudicated the issue and allowed the appeal and further cancelled the order dated 19.04.2007.
Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the name of the petitioners’ mother having been mutated in the revenue record, the petitioners’ mother had acquired significant and vested interest in the said property. Respondent No.3 though aware of the said fact, initiated proceedings. The said proceedings has been preferred even without arraigning the mother of the petitioners as necessary party. It is further contended that respondent No.2 even without observing the said lacuna has proceeded to pass the order behind the back of the petitioners’ mother. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 ought to have afforded an opportunity of hearing to the mother of the petitioners as she is the aggrieved party. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 despite the same, proceeded to pass the impugned order and thereby impugned order is vitiated on the ground material irregularity and also the procedural irregularity.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 would submit that the impugned proceedings is in consonance with the compromise decree arrived at between the parties on 29.06.1988.
4. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the instant property is not the subject matter of the compromise decree and hence, terms of the said compromise decree are inapplicable to the property involved herein.
5. Be that as it may, it is fairly admitted by learned counsel for respondent No.3 that the mother of the petitioners, was neither heard nor arraigned as party before the Competent Authority.
6. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant writ petition warrants interference.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed in part. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to respondent No.2 for consideration afresh after affording opportunity to the interested parties. Parties shall appear before respondent No.2 on 24.06.2019 at 3.00 p.m. without awaiting any notice. Parties shall produce the copy of this order on the said date of hearing.
Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of as above.
Sd/- JUDGE VM CT:HR