Allowed

Sri. Abdul Khan v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2022WP/16308/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash orders dismissing an appeal regarding land classified as Phada. Court held that absence of hearing violated principles of natural justice. Petition allowed, matter remitted to Assistant Commissioner with directions to hear petitioner within four months upon receipt of new documents proving title and Khatha.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; Impugned order quashed; Matter remitted to Assistant Commissioner to hear petitioner within four months.

Sri. Abdul Khan Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

¶6

W.P.No.16308/2018 (KLR - RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. ABDUL KHAN, S/O ABDUL SATHAR SAB, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O NEAR LAXMI CANTEEN, AT SHIVAMOGGA CITY, DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT.MANJULADEVI R KAMADALLI, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201, DISTRICT: SHIVAMOGGA.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SHIVAMOGGA SUB DIVISION, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201.

¶14

THE THAHASHILDAR, SHIVAMOGGA TALUKA, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201.

¶15

… RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.SESHU V., HCGP)

¶17

¶18

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE R-1 IN R.MIS.38/2012-13 DATED 23.2.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE - E AND R.MISC NO.39/2012-13 DATED 23.2.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE - E1 AND ETC.,

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner preferred two appeals challenging the classification of his lands as Phada for non payment of the land revenue.

¶22

One of the appeal was dismissed on the ground that there was no appearance on behalf of the appellant or his counsel and the other appeal was dismissed on the ground that the appeal had been filed nearly 30 years after the land was classified as Phada and there was no document

¶23

produced to show that the petitioner was a Khatedar.

¶24

The revision preferred against the said order to the Deputy Commissioner was also dismissed.

¶25

¶26

Learned counsel submits that the documents

¶27

indicating the title of the petitioner and documents showing that the Khatha had been entered in his name could not be produced as the petitioner’s counsel had not appeared before the authorities and the same had now been produced as Annexures-A and B. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the matter may be remitted to the authorities, so as to enable the petitioner to put forth his defence before the Assistant Commissioner.

¶28

In my view, since the impugned order has been passed without hearing the petitioner and since the documents are produced before this Court, indicating that the petitioner has a title and the Khata was also standing in his name, the impugned order is required to be quashed and the matter is required to be remitted to the Assistant Commissioner, who shall hear the petitioner and shall also permit the petitioner to file his reply and documents and thereafter hear the petitioner and proceed to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

¶29

¶30

The Assistant Commissioner to undertake and complete this exercise within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶31

The writ petition is accordingly allowed .

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

Sri. Abdul Khan v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Abdul Khan v. the Deputy Commissioner

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

Smt Vimala Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Anjula Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Leela Bai Vs the Special Deputy Commissioner

Smt Rathnamma Vs the State of Karnataka

M S Shankaranarayana Vs State of Karnataka

Govindraju Vs State of Karnataka