Allowed

Smt Lakkamma W/O Karihanumaiah v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Oct 2021WP/9736/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition challenging an order dismissing an appeal for default under the PTCL Act. The court held that the Special Deputy Commissioner passed the order without issuing due notice to the petitioner, violating Section 36 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and principles of natural justice. The impugned order was quashed, and the matter remitted for a fresh h

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.06.2006 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District to reconsider afresh and pass an appro

Smt Lakkamma W/O Karihanumaiah Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.9736 OF 2006 (SC/ST)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. LAKKAMMA W/O KARIHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS DEVAGERE VILLAGE KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. J C KUMAR & H. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATES)

¶10

AND:

¶11

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU.

¶12

2 . SRI HANUMAIAH S/O BUDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶13

3 . CHIKKAHANUMANTHA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O LATE BUDDAPPA

¶14

¶15

4 . KUMAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O BUDDAPPA 5 . D LAKSHMI D/O BUDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 ARE R/AT DEVAGERE VILLAGE KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK. 6 . NARASAMMA D/O BUDDAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS. 6(a) SRI. NAGARAJ H/O LATE NARASAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR. 6(b) SMT. SHAKUNTALA D/O NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT DEVEGERE VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560 074. 7 . KANTHI DELETED AS PER THE AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS ORDER OF THIS HON’BLE D/O BUDDAPPA COURT DATED 30.08.2019 8 . SRI MOHAMMED MASTHAN SAHIB SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR 8(a) SMT. MEHABOOBI W/O LATE MOHAMMED MASTHAN SAHIB AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS RESIDING AT No.5 DURGAMMA TEMPLE ROAD

¶16

¶17

KALASIPALYA BENGALURU – 560 002.

¶18

9 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.

¶19

10 . SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT.

¶20

SMT. SARASWATHI IMPLEADED AS PER THE D/O LATE BUDDAIAH ORDER DATED 24.09.2021 AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT DEVEGERE COLONY KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560 074.

¶21

….RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. T. R. RAJESHWARI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-5 SRI. M. SANDESH KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-1, R-9 AND R-10 VIDE ORDER DATED 30.08.2019 R-7 DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 26.02.2020 R-6(b) IS TREATED AS LR OF R-6(a)

¶23

R-6(b), 8(a), R-11 ARE SERVED)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISIONER, BANGALORE DISTRICT IN NO.SC.ST(A).1/ 1987-88 DATED 23.6.2006 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-D; AND ETC.

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 23.06.2006, passed by respondent No.10, has filed the present writ petition.

¶29

Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:

¶30

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was cultivating the land bearing Sy.No.68 under the original allottee Buddappa. Buddappa sold the land granted to him in the year 1965, to Mohammed Masthan Sahib. Petitioner continued to cultivate the land in Sy.No.68. After the Land Reforms Act came into force, petitioner filed an application for grant of land in the year 1974. The petitioner is cultivating the land since from 1963, till date. The father of respondent Nos.4 to 6 filed an application under Section 4 of The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain

¶31

¶32

Lands) Act 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PTCL Act’). Respondent No.9 - Assistant Commissioner allowed the petition filed by the father of respondent Nos.4 to 6. The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.9, filed an appeal under Section 5 of PTCL Act before respondent No.10 – Special Deputy Commissioner. The said appeal came to be dismissed for default on 14.08.1987. The petitioner filed restoration petition which also came to be dismissed on 20.11.1987. The petitioner aggrieved by the orders dated 14.08.1987 and 20.11.1987, preferred a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.2594/1988. This Court vide order dated 30.05.1996, allowed the writ petition and remitted the matter to respondent No.10 with a direction to dispose of the appeal within a period of 6 months. Respondent No.10 took up the matter on 25.01.2006, and disposed of the case on 23.06.2006, without

¶33

¶34

notice to the petitioner. Hence the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶35

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos.1, 9 and 10.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

¶37

that respondent No.10 has not issued notice to the petitioner informing the date of hearing. He further submits that respondent No.10 without hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, has passed the impugned order. He further submits that the impugned order passed by respondent No.10 is behind the back of the petitioner. He also submits that there is violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶38

Per contra, learned HCGP supports the impugned order.

¶39

¶40

Perused the records and considered the

¶41

submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶42

It is not in dispute that originally Buddappa i.e., father of respondent Nos.4 to 6 filed a petition under the provisions of PTCL Act for resumption of land. The Assistant Commissioner - respondent No.9, on enquiry, allowed the petition filed by Buddappa. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order, preferred an appeal before respondent No.10. Respondent No.10 dismissed the appeal for default on 14.08.1987. Thereafter petitioner filed an application for restoration of appeal. The said application came to be rejected vide order dated 20.11.1987. The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.10, preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.2594/1988. This Court allowed the writ petition and remitted the matter to respondent No.10.

¶43

¶44

Petitioner has produced copy of order sheet

¶45

to show that respondent No.10, without issuing notice

¶46

to petitioner, has passed the impugned order. Further, from the perusal of the order sheet, it does not disclose that petitioner was present before respondent No.10 on 29.03.2006. Thereafter, respondent No.10 proceeded to pass the impugned order on 23.06.2006. Respondent No.10 has also noted in the impugned order that notice of hearing was sent to petitioner by RPAD which is returned as ‘addressee not found in the address given’. Respondent No.10, in the absence of petitioner, has proceeded to pass the impugned order. The Respondent No.10 has to hold an enquiry as contemplated under Section 36 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 which reads as under:

¶47

“36. Hearing and decisions to be

¶48

in public and after notice. —(1) Every hearing whether in a formal or summary inquiry, shall be in public and the parties

¶49

¶50

or their recognised agents shall have due notice to attend. Every order passed after hearing shall be signed and pronounced in open court on a day of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their recognised agents:

¶51

Provided that when neither a party nor his recognised agent is present in court when the order is pronounced, the substance of the order containing the decision shall be communicated by post to such party or his recognised agent.

¶52

(2) If any party to a case or proceeding, whether in a formal or summary inquiry does not appear on the date fixed for hearing, after due service of a notice or summons on him, the case or proceeding may be heard and determined in his absence, or may be dismissed for default, as the case may be.

¶53

(3) The party against whom any order is passed under sub-section (2)

¶54

¶55

may apply within thirty days from the date of such order or knowledge of the order in case the notice or summons was not duly served, to have it set aside on the ground that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing at the hearing and the Revenue Officer may, after a notice to the opposite party who was present on the date on which such order was passed and after making such inquiry as he considers necessary, set aside the order passed and decide the case on merits.”

¶56

Section 36 provides that every hearing shall be in public and the parties or their recognised agents shall have due notice to attend. In the present case there is no notice either to the petitioner or his recognised agents. Thus the impugned order passed by Respondent No.10 is in violation of principles of natural justice. Thus, on this ground itself, the writ petition is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶57

¶58

ORDER

¶59

The writ petition is allowed.

¶60

The impugned order dated 23.06.2006, is hereby quashed and set aside. Matter is remitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District to reconsider afresh and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law, after hearing the parties, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶61

All the contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶62

SD/JUDGE

¶63

Smt Lakkamma W/O Karihanumaiah v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Lakkamma W/O Karihanumaiah 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V Krishnappa S/O V.B. Venkataramaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri G Krishnappa Vs Smt U R Chandrakala

Master Kushal K . P.R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.K.P.Srinivas Gowda Vs the Medical Council of India

Smt. Rangamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri P Gopal Reddy Vs Smt Muniyamma