Partly allowed

Smt Girija Prabhakar v. Assistant Commissioner

Karnataka HC9 Jun 2021WP/13115/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the dismissal of her revenue appeal for default. The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and restored the appeal for reconsideration on merits with directions to schedule a hearing within specified timelines.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of 11.01.2019 in RA No. 111/2016-17 is quashed, and the appeal is restored for reconsideration on merits with directions for scheduling the first date of hearing within stipulated t

Smt Girija Prabhakar Vs Assistant Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION No. 13115/2020 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

¶9

Smt. Girija Prabhakar W/o. late K.V. Prabhakar Aged about 70 years Resident of Kanakatte Village Kanakatte Hobli Arisekere Taluk Hassan District – 573 144 And also No. 275, B Block J.P. Nagara 1^st Stage 12^th Cross Mysuru – 570 008. … PETITIONER

¶10

(By Sri. Gurudhatta, Adv., for Sri. N. Praveen Kumar, Adv.)

¶11

AND :

¶12

¶13

The Assistant Commissioner Hassan Sub-Division Opp. Government Medical

¶14

College Building

B.M. Road

Hassan – 573 203.

The Tahsildar Arsikere Taluk Hassan District – 573 144.

¶19

The Deputy Tahsildar Nadakacheri Kannakatte Hobli Arisekere Taluk Hassan District – 573 144. … RESPONDENTS

¶20

(By Sri. R. Srinivas Gowda, AGA)

¶21

¶22

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the impugned order bearing No. R.A. No. 111/2016-2017 dated 11.01.2019 and etc.

¶23

This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court passed the following;

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The petitioner has filed this petition impugning the

¶26

order dated 11.01.2019 in RA No. 111/2016-17 on the file of the Assistant Commissioner, Hassan Subdivision, Hassan-the first respondent. The appeal in RA No. 111/2016-17 is

¶27

¶28

preferred by the petitioner under section 136 (2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 calling in question the Endorsement dated 18.05.2016 issued by the Tahasildar, Arsikere, and the appeal is dismissed for default.

¶29

The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner’s family has been in possession of the land measuring 5 acres in survey No. 239 of Kannakatte Village, Kannakatte Hobli, Arsikere - the subject property. In terms of the Settlement Deed executed by the propositus of the family, the subject property is allotted to the petitioner’s husband, Sri. K.V. Prabhakar. Subsequently, the subject property is also regranted to him under the provisions of the appropriate statute. However, while consequentially recording the revenue records, the extent of the subject property has been mentioned as 4 [four] acres instead of 5 [five] acres. The petitioner, on coming to know about this error, approached the Tahasildar, Arsikere to correct such error. The Tahasildar,

¶30

¶31

Arsikere has informed the petitioner that the request for correction of the extent of lands cannot be considered because of the later phodi of the land in Survey No. 239 of Kannakatte Village, Kannakatte Hobli, Arsikere and the petitioner must file an appeal under section 136 (2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The petitioner has accordingly preferred the appeal in RA No. 111/2016-17.

¶32

The petitioner repeatedly approached the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Hassan Subdivision - the first respondent for the status of the appeal, but to no avail. Ultimately, after the petitioner filed application for ‘information’ about the appeal under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 with the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan, the petitioner is issued with a copy of the order dated 11.01.2019. The appeal stands dismissed recording that none appeared for the petitioner when the case was called.

¶33

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the order sheet in the appeal proceedings, submits that after the first hearing date on 14.07.2017, there was no effective hearing as on every date of hearing thereafter, the presiding Officer was not sitting. Finally, on 11.01.2019, the appeal is dismissed for default recording none appeared for the petitioner. The learned counsel emphasises that the petitioner has been diligent in following up with the appeal, and it is borne out by the fact that the petitioner has secured the details of the status of the appeal under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶35

The learned Additional Government Advocate, without entering into a debate on the conduct of the petitioner or the merits of the submissions made, submits that the appeal can be restored for reconsideration by the

¶36

¶37

Assistant Commissioner, Hassan subdivision -the first respondent with permission to the petitioner to file an application requesting for a date of hearing, and the first respondent would thereafter intimate the date of hearing and dispose of the appeal strictly in accordance with law.

¶38

In the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the light of the submissions, the writ petition is allowed in part by the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

[a] The petition is allowed in part. The order dated 11.01.2019 in RA No. 111/201617 on the file of the Assistant Commissioner, Hassan Subdivision - the first respondent is quashed, and the appeal is restored for reconsideration on merits.

¶41

[b] The petitioner is permitted to file an application with the first respondent for

¶42

¶43

scheduling the first date of hearing on the restoration of the appeal. The petitioner shall file such application within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order enclosing such copy.

¶44

[c] The first respondent, within three [3] weeks from the date of receipt of such application, issue notice of the date of hearing to the petitioner and dispose of the

¶45

appeal strictly in accordance with law.

¶46

SD/JUDGE.

¶47

LRS.

Smt Girija Prabhakar v. Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Girija Prabhakar v. Assistant 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

Smt K Leelavathi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Krishnamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka

sri mudalagiriyappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.S.P.Vasantha Kumar Vs Deputy Commissioner

M/S Siddharth Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commisioner of Public Instructions

Smt. Prabhavathi Vs State of Karnataka