Allowed

M/S. Vedant Projects v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Jul 2021WP/1885/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, which recalled the Commissioner's earlier order. The Court held that the revision order was a nullity due to lack of jurisdiction and must be examined de novo.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 29.07.2020 in Revision Petition No.127/2018 is quashed; the Deputy Commissioner is directed to examine the merits of both revision petitions without prejudice.

M/S. Vedant Projects Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JULY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1885/2021 (KLR/RES)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

M/S. VEDANT PROJECTS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 1304, 20^TH CROSS, 9^TH CROSS, J. P. NAGAR, 2^ND PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 078, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI. H. K. VENKATASWAMY.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(By SMT. S. SUSHEELA., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. RAMESHA T. R., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPT BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶14

¶15

SMT. SAVITRAMMA W/O. LATE JAYANTH, MAJOR, R/AT NO. 153, SREE CHOWDESHWARI NILAYA, 6^TH CROSS, NEAR E.K. MART, HULIMAVU, B.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(By SRI.A.R. SRINIVASA., AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. S.A. AHMED, ADVOCATE FOR R4 )

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A DATED 29.07.2020 PASSED IN REVISION PETITION NO.127/2018 ON THE FILE OF R-2.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Smt. S. Susheela, the learned Senior Counsel for

¶22

the petitioner, Sri. S.A. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent, and the learned Additional Government Advocate are heard for final disposal of the petition, and the records are perused.

¶23

The petitioner has filed the Revision Petition No.127/2018 before the Deputy Commissioner,

¶24

¶25

Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru [the second respondent] impugning the order dated 15.02.2018 in RA[S]176/2016-17 by the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-division, Bengaluru [the third respondent]; a third party has also impugned this order dated 15.02.2018 in RA[S]176/2016-17 in the petition in Revision Petition No.113/2018. The service of notice was complete in both these revision petitions. The second Respondent, instead of taking up both the revision petitions for simultaneous consideration, has considered the revision petition filed by the petitioners in Revision Petition No.127/2018 and allowed the same on 16.01.2020 [Annexure-B].

¶26

Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner by the impugned order dated 29.07.2020 in Revision Petition No.127/2018, purportedly in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [for short 'KLR Act'], has recalled the

¶27

¶28

order dated 16.01.2020 on the ground that the pendency of the earlier petition by the third party in Revision Petition No.113/2018 was not brought to his notice. The earlier revision petition in Revision Petition No.113/2018 by the third party is still pending consideration.

¶29

Smt. S. Susheela, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the fourth respondent cannot have any grievance with the impugned order because she had not challenged the Assistant Commissioner’s order dated 15.02.2018 in RA[S]176/2016-17. Even otherwise, the fourth respondent cannot have any grievance with the Assistant Commissioner’s order dated 15.02.2018 in view of the earlier concluded proceedings in W.P.No.37109/2016 and the connected writ petition which is disposed of on 11.03.2020 and the confirmation of this order in the writ appeal.

¶30

¶31

However, the Deputy Commissioner has

¶32

recalled the order dated 16.01.2020 [Annexure-B] in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 25 of the KLR Act. But the Deputy Commissioner could not have exercised such jurisdiction under Section 25 of the KLR Act to revise the final order dated 16.01.2020 because the jurisdiction of revision is not conferred under the statute. Further, the merits of the order dated 15.02.2018 by the third Respondent in RA[S]176/201617 is yet to be examined by the Deputy Commissioner at the instance of a third party. The Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 16.01.2020 is not challenged, and this order cannot bind the third party as admittedly, the third party as, admittedly, such third party is not heard.

¶33

In these circumstances, which this Court would consider peculiar, and in the interest of justice, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ

¶34

¶35

petition must be allowed observing that the order dated 29.07.2020 is a nullity, and both the Revision Petition No.113/2018 and Revision Petition No.127/2018 shall be re-examined notwithstanding any conclusion or opinion in the order dated 16.01.2020. Hence, the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

[i] The writ petition is allowed, and the order dated 29.07.2020 in Revision Petition No.127/2018 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru District, Mysuru [the respondent No.1] [Annexure-A] is quashed;

¶38

[ii] The Deputy Commissioner shall examine the merits of the Assistant Commissioner’s order dated 15.02.2018 in RA[S]176/2016-17 in Revision Petition in Nos.113/2020 and 127/2018 after hearing all the concerned uninfluenced by any

¶39

¶40

opinion/conclusion contained in the order dated 16.01.2020, and the parties shall be at liberty to urge all grounds notwithstanding any conclusion or opinion in such order.

¶41

[iii] The Deputy Commissioner shall dispose of the Revision Petition Nos.113/2018 and 127/2018 as

¶42

expeditiously as possible but within an outer limit of six [6] weeks from the date on which a certified copy of this order is placed on record.

¶43

SD/JUDGE

¶44

AN/-

M/S. Vedant Projects v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Vedant Projects v. the State of Karnataka

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

Sri. Puttaswamy Vs the Dy. Commissioner

Sri Kariyappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Siddappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. M.K. Govindaraju Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri K Ganapathi Bhat Vs Deputy Commissioner

K C Manmatha Vs the Prl. Secretary