Next > 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.7763/2019 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
1 . SUDHEER SINGH S/O LATE BALAJI SINGH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
2 . SUNIL SINGH S/O LATE BALAJI SINGH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
3 . SHOBHA D/O LATE BALAJI SINGH AGED ABOUT 54 YEAR.
ALL ARE PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.532, A-CROSS, DVC LAYOUT RAMAKRISHNA LAYOUT MYSORE – 22.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VINAY HEGDE, ADV., ON BEHALF OF SRI. S.V. SHASTRI, ADV.,) AND:
1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA – 562 159.
2. GAJARAJ SINGH S/O LATE RAJA SINGH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS RESIDING AT CHIKKENAHALLI VILLAGE, KYLANCHA HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 159.
3 . DHEER SINGH S/O LATE DURGA SING AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT CHIKKENAHALLI VILLAGE, KYLANCHA HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 159.
4. SRI. RAJESHWARI BAI W/O PRAKASH SINGH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT POLICE QTRS CHANNAPATNA TOWN RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 159.
5 . SRI. PREMA BAI W/O HARI SINGH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT CHANNAPATNA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 160.
6 . SRI. SURESH SINGH S/O LATE DURGA SINGH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT CHIKKENAHALLI VILLAGE, KYLANCHA HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 159.
7 . SRI. VASUDEVA SINGH S/O LATE DURGA SINGH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT CHIKKENAHALLI VILLAGE, KYLANCHA HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 159.
8 . KRISHNA BAI W/O LATE NARASINGH AND DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF LATE RAJA SINGH AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS RESIDING AT CHIKKENAHALLI VILLAGE, KYLANCHA HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 159.
9 . ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION RAMANAGARA – 562 159.
10 . THASILDAR RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA – 562 120.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R-1, R-9 & R-10;
SRI. GIRISH, ADV., ON BEHALF OF SRI. C. MANJUNATH, ADV., FRO R-2 TO R-8) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 IN REVISION PETITION NO90/2016-17 DATED:29.11.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-D.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri Vinay Hegde, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Sri S.V.Shastri for petitioners, Sri Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA appearing on behalf of respondents-1, 9 & 10 and Sri Girish, learned Advocate appearing for respondents-2 to 8 and perused the records.
2. Petitioners have called in question order dated 29.11.2018 (Annexure-D) passed by first respondent whereunder revision petition filed by respondents-2 to 8 herein challenging the order of Assistant Commissioner dated 31.10.2014 came to be set aside by ordering the names of respondents-2 to 8 being entered in the revenue records.
3. Grievance of the petitioners is that respondents-2 to 8 have no manner of right, title and interest over the property bearing Sy.No.111 measuring 6 acres situated at Chikkenahalli village, Kylancha Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk and had got the revenue records mutated in their favour by furnishing false genealogical tree and had obtained khata in respect of the said land. Application was filed by petitioners objecting to name of second respondent being entered in revenue records which was assigned RRT/CR/195-2014-15 and an order came to be passed on 07.08.2014 (Annexure-A) cancelling MR No.19/13-14 standing in the joint names of respondents-2 to 8 herein. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondents-2 to 8 herein filed a revision petition in No.90/2016-17 before first respondent which has been allowed.
4. It is the contention of Sri Vinay Hegde, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners that order passed by first respondent is without notice to petitioners and order sheet of R.P.No.90/2016-17 does not disclose service of notice having been effected on respondents therein i.e., petitioners herein or service of notice on writ petitioners herein being held sufficient and as such, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, he seeks for quashing of the impugned order.
5. Per contra, learned Advocate appearing for respondents-2 to 8 would support the impugned order and has made available certified copy of paper publication which discloses that petitioners herein were notified of the pendency of revision petition by service of notice through substituted service namely, paper publication. He would also contend that order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 07.08.2014 (Annexure-A) is without notice to respondents-2 to 8 herein and as such, it has been rightly interfered by the Deputy Commissioner.
6. Learned AGA appearing for respondents- 1, 9 & 10 would support the impugned order.
7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of the records, it requires to be noticed at the outset that order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 07.08.2014 (Annexure-A) is in gross violation of principles of natural justice namely, under the said order, MR No.19/13-14 has been set aside which entry was carried out by entering the names of respondents-2 to 8 in respect of subject land. Thus, it was incumbent upon the Assistant Commissioner to have issued notice to respondents-2 to 8 herein in whose names khata of subject property stood before its cancellation. This is the first illegality which came to be committed by 9th respondent - Assistant Commissioner.
8. Subsequently, when matter was taken up in revision petition by respondents-2 to 8 in revision petition No.90/16-17 on account of non-service of notice to writ petitioners herein by regular mode, respondents-2 to 8 herein who were revision petitioners took out notices by substituted service namely, through paper publication.
9. It is no doubt true as rightly contended by learned Advocate appearing for respondents-2 to 8, paper publication has been done. However, perusal of same would indicate date of hearing had been notified in paper publication as 01.02.2018 and order sheet of Revision petition No.90/16-17 produced at Annexure-E would disclose on 01.02.2018 there was no sitting held and matter had not been called in open court. In other words, writ petitioners had no knowledge about next date of hearing or about the pendency of revision petition. That apart, Deputy Commissioner has also not held service of notice on respondents-2 to 8 therein was complete. This is the second ground on which procedural irregularity has occurred at the hands of second respondent.
10. Thus, both orders namely, order dated 29.11.2018 (Annexure-D) passed by first respondent in R.P.No.90/2016-17 as well as order dated 07.08.2014 (Annexure-A) passed by 9th respondent would not stand the test of law. Hence, both orders deserves to be quashed.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
Next >