IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.NO.50233/2018 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. VENKATARAMANAPPA S/O LATE DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT GANAPATHIHALLI MANCHANAKUPPE POST TAVAREKERE HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK – 560 163.
(BY SRI. PRINCE ISAC, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001.
2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGAR – 571 511.
3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RAMANAGAR SUB-DIVISION RAMANAGAR – 571 511.
4 . THE TAHSILDAR ...PETITIONER RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGAR – 571 511.
(BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT IN NO.RRT/CR(B)/99/16-17 DATED:14.06.2016 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR. RAMANAGAR TALUK. RAMANAGAR COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-N.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Though matter is listed for preliminary hearing by consent of learned Advocates appearing for parties it is taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard Sri.Prince Isac, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.Y.D.Harsha, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents. Perused the records.
3. Petitioner has called in question endorsement dated 14.06.2016-Annexure-N issued by fourth respondent, whereunder request of petitioner for entering his name in the revenue records in respect of land bearing Sy.No.26 measuring 14 Acres 36 guntas have been rejected on the ground that petitioner has not made available relevant documents relating to the property belonging to his ancestors and hand written Pahani are fictitious and as such, name of petitioner cannot be entered relating to subject land.
4. It is the contention of Sri. Prince Isac, learned counsel appearing for petitioner that impugned endorsement is passed without affording petitioner an opportunity in the matter to have his say and produce documents and as such it is in violation of principles of natural justice.
5. Per contra, Sri.Y.D.Harsha, learned Government Advocate would support the impugned endorsement and contend that petitioner is having an alternate and efficacious remedy of filing an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and as such without availing alternative remedy, which is efficacious petitioner cannot approach this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction. Hence, he prays for rejection of the petition.
6. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records it would clearly indicate that at an undisputed point of time khata of subject property was mutated in name of father of petitioner vide M.R.No.15/4188 dated 25.01.1957. RTC extracts for the period 1976-77 and 1981-82 vide Annexure-B series would evidence this fact. He had also paid the taxes in respect of said land on 13.03.1982- Annexure-C. On the demise of father of the petitioner name of petitioner was entered in the RTC extracts and continued from 1993-94 to 2001-02 vide Annexures-D and E. Petitioner has also paid tax as per receipts vide Annexures -F & G.
7. Index of land and other revenue records would also indicate name of petitioner’s ancestors including the name of petitioner had been entered in the revenue records. However, after computerization of revenue records name of petitioner was left out in the RTC records. As such representations came to be submitted by petitioner to fourth respondent on 24.07.2006 and 01.04.2008 vide Annexures K and L respectively for entering his name in the computerized revenue records. Undisputedly no personal hearing was afforded to petitioner. While considering the representation of petitioner and fourth respondent has relied upon certain documents to arrive at a conclusion that said hand written entries are fabricated. When fourth respondent has arrived at a conclusion that petitioner has not produced any documents in support of his claim, it was but natural that fourth respondent authority ought to have notified the petitioner and called upon to produce documents in support of his claim if any. In the absence thereof, as it has happened in the instant case fourth respondent could not have rejected petitioner’s prayer. Thus, impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice. As such, availability of alternate remedy under Rule 136(2) would not deter petitioner from invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, impugned endorsement deserves to be quashed and matter deserves to be remitted back to fourth respondent for consideration afresh by affording petitioner an opportunity to place all such material in support of his claim. On such material being placed by petitioners, fourth respondent authority shall redo the matter after issuing notice to petitioner. Hence, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER (1) Writ petition is allowed.
(2) Endorsement dated 14.06.2011-
Annexure-N is quashed and matter is remitted back to fourth respondent to redo the matter afresh by affording petitioner an opportunity to place all such material in support of his claim for mutating the revenue records of subject land. In the event of petitioner seeking for personal hearing, fourth respondent shall afford personal hearing to the petitioner either by himself or through his learned counsel.
Ordered accordingly.
SD/- JUDGE RU