Quashed

Sri. Sampangiramaiah v. the Special Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC22 Oct 2019WP/37620/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by a petitioner challenging an order quashing his revenue entries was allowed. The High Court found that the impugned order violated the principles of natural justice as no date of hearing was fixed, despite the petitioner having appeared. The order was quashed and the matter remitted.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 27.07.2011 is quashed and the matter is remitted to the first respondent for adjudication afresh after issue of notice to the petitioner.

Sri. Sampangiramaiah Vs the Special Deputy Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

¶6

W.P.NO.37620/2011(KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SAMPANGIRAMAIAH S/O K.R. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/A BHOOTANAHALLI VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SAMPANGIRAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE.

¶13

2 . THE TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:27.07.2011 PASSED IN RRT (2)CR/26/2009-10 BY THE R-1 SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE VIDE ANEX-A.

¶17

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The property bearing Sy.No.64 measuring 1 Acre 35 guntas situated at Boothenahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District was said to be the subject matter of partition amongst Sryuths Munivekatappa, Eraiah and Venkata Muniyappa who under partition deed dated 03.05.1973 divided said property and 30 guntas was allotted to the share of Munivenkatappa and he along with his sons sold the same land in favour of one Sri. Nanjundappa s/o Muninanjappa under a registered sale deed dated 29.04.1974 vide Annexure-B. Katha of said land measuring to the extent of 30 guntas was mutated in the name of Sri. Nanjundappa vide M.R.No.9/1979-80. Said Nanjundappa sold said land in favour of petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 30.10.1998Annexure-C. Revenue records came to be mutated in the name of petitioner vide M.R.No.6/1998-99 and since then it has continued in the name of petitioner.

¶21

¶22

Petitioner claims to be in actual possession

¶23

and enjoyment of said property. A show cause notice came to be issued to petitioner on 20.02.2003 by the Forest Department alleging that it is Forest land and petitioner had encroached the same. Reply came to be submitted by petitioner on 05.03.2003 vide AnnexureG. After considering the same, an endorsement came to be issued to the petitioner on 27.02.2008 vide Annexure-H intimating that property belonging to the petitioner is away from Forest land. On 07.12.2010, Deputy Commissioner initiated proceedings under Section 136(3) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 alleging that petitioner had encroached the land in question. Petitioner appeared and filed detailed statement of objections and no date of hearing was fixed by the first respondent. It is thereafter the impugned order dated 27.07.2011 came to be passed vide Annexure-A whereunder the revenue entries made in the name of petitioner came to be set aside. Hence, this petition.

¶24

¶25

It has been urged in the writ petition that

¶26

said order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and as such it is liable to be quashed. Said grounds urged is susceptible acceptance, inasmuch as impugned order does not disclose date of hearing having been fixed by first respondent or petitioner being aware of said proceedings subsequent to his appearance. In that view of the matter, impugned order is liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

¶27

Hence, I proceed to pass the following;

¶28

ORDER

¶29

(1) Writ petition is allowed.

¶30

(2) Order dated 27.07.2011 is hereby quashed and matter is remitted back to the first respondent for adjudication afresh in accordance with law which exercise shall be undertaken by first respondent after issuing notice to the petitioner.

¶31

¶32

Sri. Y.D.Harsha, learned Government Advocate is

¶33

permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks

from today.

SD/-

JUDGE

Sri. Sampangiramaiah v. the Special Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Sampangiramaiah v. the Special Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Kanick Raj Vs the Government of Karnataka

Sri Ansar Pasha Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Gowramma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Shri George T Ramapuram Vs the State of Karnataka

H N Premakumar Vs State of Karnataka

H.D. Narayanamurthy Vs State of Karnataka