High Court allowed a writ petition quashing an order deleting the petitioner's name from revenue records due to violation of natural justice and remitted the matter for afresh consideration.
Writ petition allowed, impugned order quashed and remitted for afresh consideration; prior entries restored; costs made easy.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.11636 OF 2021(KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. N PADMA, ALIAS PADAMMA, D/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.109-38/6, 38/8, DS MAX SAMRAT, PURNAPURA, MATTHIKERE GOKULA, BANGALORE-560 054.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI.AKKI MANJUNATH GOWDA K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE R-2 DTD.24.6.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-H PASSE ON ENQUIRY UNDER SECTION 136(3) OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT 1964.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioner is knocking at the doors of writ court for assailing the Special Deputy Commissioner order dated 24.06.2016 made u/s.136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (Annexure-H) whereby a direction has been issued to delete the name of the petitioner from the Revenue Records in respect of the land in question and to enter the name of Government free from all encumbrances in that stead. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that this order has been made without due service of notice and petitioner had no knowledge of the proceedings and therefore the same is liable to be voided on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. He also draws attention of the court to the Sale Deed dated 29.01.1999
3
wherein petitioner’s vendor had obtained title to the subject property from the original grantee namely sons of Muniswamaiah S/o Pillappa and to the Sale Deed dated 20.10.20003 under which the petitioner bought the subject land. He argues that if this material was looked into, the impugned order could not have been passed.
and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined
4
to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as apparently the petitioner has got some registered instruments which given the opportunity would have been pressed into service for consideration of the Special Deputy Commissioner. The denial of opportunity of hearing is a serious matter when the principles of natural justice are treated by the Apex Court as being part of Article 14 of the Constitution in a catena of decisions, as rightly and vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
can go before the civil court or before the special court as mentioned above for attaching his title to the subject property is a poor solace to the citizen who is holding two registered sale deeds, one of them being more than two decades old. Ordinarily, the registered instruments of the kind enjoy presumptive value and therefore asking the petitioner to go before the same court is not acceptable to this court. It hardly needs to be stated that the Constitution
5
is meant for rendering justice and not merely for maintaining theories.
In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set at naught. Matter is remitted to the portals of 2nd respondent-Special Deputy Commissioner for consideration afresh in accordance with law. All contentions are kept open. Petitioner is put to notice through his counsel to appear before the said authority on 12.12.2022 at 3.00 p.m. and seek further instructions at his hands.
It hardly needs to be stated that in view of invalidation of impugned order the entries that existed prior to this shall be restored immediately as they were before.
Costs made easy.
Sd/JUDGE
Snb/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order depriving the petitioner of rights in land violates principles of natural justice due to denial of hearing opportunity.
Whether the petitioner must approach the civil or special court instead of the writ court to adjudicate the title dispute registered instrument.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Apostle of Ahimsa J.Explained¶27
3 provisions across 2 enactments
SMT. N PADMA, ALIAS PADAMMA
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH
THE TAHSILDAR, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
KRISHNA S.DIXIT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
