Quashed

Smt. Prabhavathi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2021WP/58410/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the Deputy Commissioner's order denying a permanent suguvali chit and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal's dismissal. The Court held that the petitioner was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to contest the Tahsildar's report on land extent. Proceedings were restored for reconsideration with procedural safeguards.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders of Deputy Commissioner and Appellate Tribunal quashed. Proceedings restored to Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration after furnishing Tahsildar's report to petitioner.

Smt. Prabhavathi Vs State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.58410/2016 (KLR RES)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SMT. PRABHAVATHI D/O SHIVALINGAIAH W/O K R CHANDRASHEKHAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDENT OF KANCHINAKALLU DURGA DODDAMAGARAVALLI VILLAGE ALDUR HOBLI,

¶8

CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK & DISTRICT - 577 101.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(By SRI. GANGADHARAPPA A. V.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 101.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALUR SUB DIVISION CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 101.

¶15

¶16

4. THE TAHSILDAR CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 101.

¶17

... RESPONDENTS

¶18

(By SRI. A.R. SRINIVASA., AGA)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.09.2016 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO.178/2008 CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-K; A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.01.2008 PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT IN NO:M4:LND:CR:205:2005-06 TRUE COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-G AND BE PLEASED TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 TO ISSUE PERMANENT SAGUVALI CHIT TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF 4 ACRES 30 GUNTAS OF LAND IN SY.NO. 196 OF DODDAMAGARAVALLI VILLAGE, ALDUR HOBLI, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT AS WAS GRANTED TO THE PETITIONER TEMPORARILY FOR COFFEE CULTIVATION AS PER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 4^TH RESPONDENT BEARING NO. TT.ALD:SC:89/77-78 DATED 23.03.1978 TRUE COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A.

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate are heard with their consent for final disposal. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 16.01.2008 in No.M4.LND.CR.205/2005-06 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamagaluru District,

¶24

Chikkamagaluru [the second respondent] and the order dated 29.09.2016 in Appeal No.178/2008 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short 'the Appellate Tribunal'] are perused.

¶25

The petitioner's case is that she was temporarily granted land measuring 4 acres 30 guntas in Sy. No.196 of Doddamagaravalli Village, Aldur Hobli, Chikkamagaluru Taluk [subject property] in the year 1977 for the purpose of coffee plantation, and after such grant, the petitioner has planted coffee plants

¶26

¶27

undertaking all necessary development work incurring huge investment. The petitioner was issued with temporary saguvali chit as well, but in the year 1987 was called upon to submit the same for the purposes of issuance of Coffee Registration Certificate. The original is not returned to her. The petitioner, being entitled for permanent grant and also issuance of permanent saguvali chit , and also because the Bank was insisting on production of such saguvali chit to extend financial assistance, repeatedly approached the authorities for issuance thereof.

¶28

The Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamagaluru [the second respondent] in No.M4.LND.CR.205/2005-06 has rejected the petitioner's application for permanent saguvali chit by the order dated 16.01.2008 on two grounds. Firstly, because the petitioner is unable to demonstrate that she was issued saguvali chit in the year 1977 as asserted by her and the revenue entry in

¶29

¶30

her favour in MR. No.23/1980-81 would not be justified in the absence of such details. Secondly, because the petitioner's family owns land in excess of 35 acres and as such, the petitioner would not be entitled for saguvali chit of permanent grant.

¶31

The petitioner, being aggrieved by this order by the respondent No.2 on 16.01.2008, has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.178/2008. The Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal, but on verification of the records, the Appellate Tribunal has found in favour of the petitioner as regards the temporary grant of the subject property. The Appellate Tribunal has concluded that the petitioner is issued with temporary saguvali chit for the subject property on 23.03.1978 in TT.ALD.SC.89/77-78 and the mutation entry in MR. No.23/1980-81 is made pursuant to such temporary grant. The Appellate Tribunal has also recorded that the petitioner over the

¶32

¶33

next two decades has developed the land into a coffee plantation with different facilities. This conclusion has not been challenged by the State. The Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal as such only on the ground that the petitioner's family owns lands in excess of 35 acres and therefore would be ineligible for permanent grant and issuance of saguvali chit accordingly.

¶34

Sri. A.V. Gangadharappa, learned counsel

¶35

for the petitioner, challenges the findings that the petitioner's family owning lands in excess of 35 acres contending that the respondent No.2 has relied upon Tahsildar's report in that regard. But a copy of such report has not been furnished and the petitioner has had no reasonable opportunity to show cause against any such opinion by the Tahsildar. The petitioner has filed an affidavit before the Appellate Tribunal stating in categorical terms that as of the date when she was

¶36

¶37

granted the subject property on temporary basis, her family owned only 28 guntas of land. This affidavit has not been considered either by the respondent No.2 or by the Appellate Tribunal.

¶38

6. The learned counsel emphasizes that the

¶39

subject property is granted to the petitioner for the purpose of coffee plantation, and when land is granted for the purposes of coffee plantation, the ceiling limit, which is alluded to by the respondent No.2 and the Appellate Tribunal without specifically mentioning such limit, would not apply. As such, the second respondent’s order dated 16.01.2008 and the Appellate Tribunal's order 29.09.2016 cannot be sustained. The petitioner is constrained to move the present application for direction because there is threat of dispossession with the rejection of request of grant of permanent saguvali chit .

¶40

¶41

7. The learned Additional Government

¶42

Advocate, on instructions from the official who is present in the Court, submits that there is no threat of dispossession in view of the interim order granted by this Court on 19.11.2016. Be that as it may, the learned Additional Government Advocate is not able to controvert the submission that the petitioner has not been furnished with a copy of the Tahsildar's report, and neither the second respondent nor the Appellate Tribunal has considered the actual extent of land held by the petitioner as of the date of the temporary grant of land or whether the stipulation as regards the ceiling would apply in a case where the land is granted for the purpose of coffee plantation.

¶43

In the light of these circumstances of the case and the uncontroverted submissions, and especially because of the Appellate Tribunal's finding on scrutiny of the records that the petitioner is indeed granted temporarily

¶44

¶45

the subject property by order dated 23.03.1978, this Court is of the considered view that neither the second respondent’s order dated 16.01.2008 nor the Appellate Tribunal's order dated 29.09.2016 can be sustained. The proceedings in M4.LND.CR.205/2005-06 will have to be restored to the file of the second respondent for reconsideration. Hence the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

[a] The writ petition is disposed of, and the impugned order dated 16.01.2008 in No. M4.LND.CR.205/2005-06 by the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamagaluru District, Chikkamagaluru [the second respondent] and the order dated 29.09.2016 in Appeal No.178/2008 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru are quashed.

¶48

¶49

[b] The proceedings in No. M4.LND.CR.205/2005-06 are restored to the board of the second respondent for reconsideration after due notice to the petitioner. As part of such hearing, a copy of the Tahsildar's report on the extent of holding by the petitioner's family shall be furnished to the petitioner with opportunity to show cause against the same.

¶50

I.A. No.1/2019 for temporary injunction does not survive for consideration, and hence stands disposed of.

¶51

SD/JUDGE

¶52

AN/-

Smt. Prabhavathi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Prabhavathi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Girija Prabhakar Vs Assistant Commissioner

Smt K Leelavathi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Krishnamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.S.P.Vasantha Kumar Vs Deputy Commissioner

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

Ashok Naika Vs Tahasildar