IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION NOS.18661-63 OF 2019 (GM-RES) AND WRIT PETITION NO.49865 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
1. Sri.Parameshwarappa, Aged about 70 years, S/o late Shankarappa, 2. Smt.Sowbhagya, Aged about 48 years, D/o Parameshwarappa, 3. Smt.Bharathi, Aged about 42 years, D/o Parameshwarappa, Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 R/at Karehalli Thotadamane, Tirupathi Post, Kasaba Hobli, Arasikere Taluk, Hassan – 573 131.
4. Sri.Puttaswamy, Aged about 55 years, S/o Veerannashetty, R/at Maruthinagar Layout, Kasaba Hobli, Arasikere Town, Arasikere Taluk, Hassan District – 573 131.
... Petitioners (By Sri.Vijaya Krishna Bhat M, Advocate) AND 1. The State of Karnataka, Department of Social Welfare, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru – 560 001. By its Secretary.
2. The Karnataka State Commission for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, No.14/3, 2nd Floor, CFC Building, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru – 560 001. Represented by its Secretary.
3. The Tahsildar, Arasikere Taluk, Arasikere – 573 103.
4. Smt. Suma Bai, Major, W/o Krishna Naik B.R., R/at Karehalli Thandya, Kasaba Hobli, Tirupathi Post, Arasikere Taluk, Hassan District – 573 131.
... Respondents (By Sri.Vijaykumar A Patil, AGA for R.1 and R.3) These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the entire proceedings pending before the respondent No.2 – Commissioner in proceedings initiated by the respondent No.4 against the petitioners herein as per Annexure-E and etc.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The learned Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.1 and 3.
2. The petitioners in the above Writ Petition sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the entire proceedings pending before the 2nd respondent – Karnataka State Commission initiated by the 4th respondent against the petitioners herein as per Annexure-E.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioners are the owners of the land in Sy. No.11/1 totally measuring 1 acre 11 guntas situated at Tirupathi Village, Arasikere Taluk, Hassan District. There was a partition amongst the petitioners as per the compromise decree came to be passed in O.S.No.397/2016. Based on the compromise decree, the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 approached respondent No.3 for mutation of the revenue entries in their favour. At that point of time, 4th respondent appeared and filed her objection. The Tahasildar over ruled the objection of respondent No.4 and ordered for mutation of revenue entries in the name of respondent Nos.2 and 3. Being not satisfied with, respondent No.4 filed a complaint before respondent No.2 – Commissioner alleging breach of agreement of sale by the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and refusal to perform terms of contract. Respondent No.4 also contended that she has obtained financial assistance from Dr.Ambedkar Development Corporation. Based on the said false complaint, respondent No.2 acted upon and issued notice directing the petitioners to appear before the respondent No.2 within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court for the relief sought for.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Advocate for State.
5. Sri. Vijaya Krishna Bhat M, learned counsel for petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the Writ Petition and contended that respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to issue notice to entertain the dispute between the parties in respect of immovable properties based on the agreement alleged to have been entered between the petitioners and respondent No.4. Therefore, he would contend that the impugned notice cannot be sustained. Admittedly, the petitioners have not filed any objections to the impugned notice issued by the respondent No.2. If that is so, the petitioners are at liberty to file objections before respondent No.2 including jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in respect of alleged Agreement said to have been entered into between the petitioners and respondent No.4. If such objections are filed, the respondent No.2 shall decide the jurisdiction first and proceed in accordance with law.
In view of the above observations, these writ petitions are disposed off.
SD/- JUDGE NBM