Partly allowed

Sri Nagarajappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Jun 2021WP/7296/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a Revenue court order declaring revenue entries fabricated. Held proceedings were held without reasonable opportunity and objections were perfunctorily considered. Order quashed and proceedings restored for reconsideration with a rehearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed insofar as it concerned the petitioner. Proceedings restored for reconsideration of objections. Petitioner permitted to file an application for scheduling a rehearing within fou

Sri Nagarajappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 7296/2020 (KLR/RES)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI NAGARAJAPPA S/O LATE HOTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT JINNAGARA VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. PAPI REDDY. G., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 1^ST FLOOR, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE KUNDANU HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.

¶13

THE THASILDAR HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.

¶14

... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. SRINIVASA GOWDA. R., AGA)

¶16

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.11.2018 PASSED BY RESPONDENT-2 IN CASE NO. REVISION PETITION 123/2010-11 ANNEXURE-'H' IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED PERTAINING TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY.

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner, who asserts ownership and possession of the land measuring 3 acres in survey No. 26/P-21 of Jinnagara Village, Jadigenahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District (For short, ' the subject land '), has filed this petition impugning the order dated 14.11.2018 in Revision Petition No. 123/2010-2011 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District.

¶21

The petitioner’s case is that the subject land is granted to him in the year 1967, and he is also issued

¶22

with Grant Certificate dated 11.04.1967. In the

¶23

¶24

subsequent family partition under a registered Partition Deed dated 07.09.2000, the subject land is allotted to him. The revenue records for the subject land, which were mutated in his favour after the issuance of the Grant Certificate dated 11.04.1967, is continued in his name even after the said registered Partition Deed vide MR No.6/2000-2001. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District-the second respondent, on the report filed by the Tahsildar, Hosakote Taluk-the third respondent, has initiated suo motu proceedings under section 136 (3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 alleging that certain documents have been fabricated. The petitioner, who entered appearance before the second respondent upon receipt of notice of the proceedings, filed his objections on 15.01.2013. Thereafter, there were 38 hearing dates, but the second respondent was not sitting for different reasons on 29 of those occasions. The impugned order dated 14.11.2018 is without reasonable opportunity to the petitioner as

¶25

¶26

there was no effective hearing, and none of the documents produced by the petitioner, including the judgment and decree dated 08.03.2013 in O.S. No.21/2013 on the file of the Additional Civil

¶27

Judge and JMFC, Hosakote has been considered.

¶28

Perused the order sheet in the proceedings before the second respondent in Revision Petition No. 123/2010-11. It is seen that the first hearing is held on 09.05.2011, and thereafter the hearing is adjourned continuously without effective hearing. On 28.03.2016, it is recorded that one of the respondents was present and certain documents are filed, and thereafter the proceedings are adjourned until the date of the impugned order. The consideration of the petitioner’s objections is perfunctory, and without a detailed examination of the different records relied upon by the petitioner, it is concluded that all the revenue entries are created and concocted.

¶29

¶30

The petitioner relies upon the Grant Certificate dated 11.04.1967, revenue entries

¶31

immediately thereafter, a registered Partition Deed and subsequent revenue entries apart from a decree of declaration of title. The Deputy Commissioner will have to consider the different documents and the circumstances relied upon by the petitioner before concluding that the documents relied upon by the petitioner are fabricated, and this would be apart from his own jurisdiction to examine such question under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka land Revenue Act, 1964. Therefore, the impugned order dated 14.11.2018 in Revision Petition No. 123/2010-11 insofar as the petitioner should be quashed and the proceedings restored for reconsideration with due opportunity to the petitioner. Hence, the following:

¶32

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The petition is allowed in part, and the impugned order dated 14.11.2018 in Revision Petition No. 123/2010-2011 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District is quashed insofar as the petitioner and the proceedings in this revision petition are restored for reconsideration of the petitioner’s objections. The petitioner is permitted to file, within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, an application with the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District for scheduling a rehearing, and the Deputy Commissioner shall issue notice of first hearing within three weeks therefrom.

¶35

SD/-

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Sri Nagarajappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Nagarajappa 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. Kempanna Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Manjunath Vs the Chief Secretary

Ravisha Vs the Secretary

M Narayana Vs M/S Snn Arjun Builders LLP

Smt Subbamma Vs M/S Snn Arjun Builders LLP

Shivakumar Vs the Assistant Commissioner