IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION Nos.40117-40118/2017 AND WRIT PETITION Nos.46646-46649/2017(KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. VANAJAXI R., W/O N. R. RAMESH, AGED 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.36, EMAMI NEST, FLAT NO.202, 1ST FLOOR, 8TH MAIN, 16TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560055.
2. SMT. RANJANA HEGDE, W/O A. M. RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, YODHA NO.6, BLOCK 7, AIISH LAYOUT, BOGADHI 2ND STAGE, MYSURU-570026.
3. MANJULA R., W/O SENTHIL KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.161/2, OLD HULIYAPPA BUILDING, 3RD MAIN, 3RD CROSS, HUNASEMARANAHALLI, BENGALURU-57.
4. SANJAYA P.N., S/O NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/ AT NO.9, “ NANDHANAM”, 1ST CROSS, NEAR CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE, SRIRAMPURAM, BENGALURU-21.
5. SMT. MANJULA, W/O THAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/ AT CHIKKAJALA VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU.
6. VENKATESAN. R., S/O K.V. RAVI, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/ AT KALIYAMMAN KOLI STREET, KALIKAPURAM VILLAGE, MANDANUR POST, AMBUR TALUK, VELLOR DISTRICT-635804.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI MANJUNATH A., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA-01.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, K. G. ROAD, BANGALORE-09.
3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK AND ADDL.NORTH TALUKS, BENGALURU-09.
4. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-09.
5. THE TAHASILDAR, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-09.
6. M/S BRUNDAVAN REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., NO.65, BRINDAVAN, SANJEEVENINAGAR, SAHAKARNAGAR, BENGALURU-560092.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SRI NANDAGOPAL REDDY.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1 TO R5; NOTICE TO R6 IS DISPENSED WITH) …… THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.01.2012, PASSED BY THE R-3 IN PROCEEDINGS AT ANNEXURE-G.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioners in the present writ petitions have sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 13.01.2012, passed by the third respondent/ Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru.
2. Without adverting to the facts and the grounds urged, the writ petitions are liable to be allowed on the short point that the third respondent/Special Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order exercising powers under the provisions of Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (‘Act’ for short), in the light of the Government Circular dated 10.10.2014 bearing No.RD 807 ASD 2014.
3. Sri A. Manjunath, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the Circular issued by the State Government dated 10.10.2014 bearing No.RD 807 ASD 2014, it has been made clear that the orders passed by the Special Deputy Commissioners in Bengaluru in exercise of powers under Section 136(3) of the ‘Act’ after 10.10.2011 were illegal and could not be enforced. Therefore, he sought to quash the impugned order passed by third respondent and contended that the matter has to remanded to the competent authority/Deputy Commissioner to pass fresh orders, in accordance with law.
4. Smt. Pramodhini Kishan, learned Addl.
Government Advocate, on instructions, submits that, in the light of the Government Circular dated 10.10.2014, the order passed by the third respondent is not sustainable in law. However, she requests this Court to reserve liberty to the competent authority to pass orders in accordance with law.
5. In view of the question of jurisdiction raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and in the light of the fair submission made by the learned Addl. Government Advocate, the writ petitions require to be allowed.
6. For the reasons stated above, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order passed by the third respondent dated 13.01.2012 in No.RRT/(2) N(A)/CR/ 04/2010-11, as per Annexure-G, is quashed holding that the Special Deputy Commissioner is not the competent authority to pass orders exercising powers under Section 136(3) of the ‘Act’, in view of the Circular dated 10.10.2014. Liberty is reserved to the competent authority to pass fresh orders under the provisions of Section 136(3) of the ‘Act’, after giving notice to the petitioners, respondent No.6 and other affected parties, if any, in accordance with law, within a period of six months from the date of issuance of such notice to the parties.
Sd/- JUDGE kcm