Partly allowed

Mr. Udayshankar Shenoy v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2022WP/27442/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside the Deputy Commissioner's order directing entry of a third party's name regarding one-third share of land, holding that such direction exceeded the Assistant Commissioner's scope and violated principles of revision.

What did the court decide?

The portion of the impugned order directing entry of the fourth respondent's name in respect of the one-third share of the property was quashed.

Mr. Udayshankar Shenoy Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER , 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.27442 OF 2016(KLR-RR/SUR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. UDAYSHANKAR SHENOY AGED 35 YEARS, SON OF LATE K.GOPALKRISHNA SHENOY, D-301, RENAISSANCE PROSPERO BELLARY ROAD, BYATARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU-560 092.

¶9

MRS. DEEPA KAMATH, AGED 43 YEARS, D/O LATE K.GOPALKRISHNA SHENOY, D-201, RENAISSANCE PROSPERO, BELLARY ROAD, BYATARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU-560 092.

¶10

...PETITIONERS (BY SRI.BASAVARAJU S, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI.NIKIT BALA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI-576 101.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KUNDAPUR DIVISION, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI-576 101.

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT, UDUPI-576 101.

¶15

¶16

SMT. ARUNA N PAI, MAJOR, W/O B.NARAYANA PAI, RESIDENT OF MADHAVA PAI COMPLEX KUMBLE, KASARGOD DISTRICT, STATE OF KERALA.

¶17

… RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.C N MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R1-R3; SMT.SUMANA BALIGA M, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE TH EIMPUGNE DORDER DATED 30.11.2015 PASSED BY R-1 AT ANNEX-G AS WELL AS THE ORDER DATED 28.05.2015 PASSED BY R-2 AT ANNEX-F HOLDING THEM AS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY AND DIRECT R-3 TO ENTER THE NAMES OF THE PETITIONERS ALONE IN RESPECT OF THE REVENUE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petitioners are knowing at the doors of Writ Court for assailing Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 30.11.2015 whereby Petitioner’s RAP NO.50/2015-16 having been dismissed, even in respect of a particular

¶23

share in the subject property the name of contesting Respondent is also directed to be entered to the Records. Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the Petitioners argues that, Petitioners cannot be worse off in their own

¶24

¶25

revision and therefore that part of the impugned order which exceeds the frame of Assistant Commissioner’s order needs to be set at naught; the said portion in the impugned order has the following text:

¶26

“ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÁAqÀÄgÀAUÀ ±ÉuÉÊ EªÀgÀ 1/3 £ÉÃ CA±ÀzÀ ºÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÄ£Àgï ªÉÄÃ®ä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ MAzÀ£ÉÃ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀ°è dAnAiÀiÁV PÀAzÁAiÀÄ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À°è zÁR°¸À®Ä vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgÀgÀÄ GqÀÄ¦ EªÀjUÉ CzÉÃ²¹zÉ.”

¶27

Learned AGA appearing for the official

¶28

Respondents and the Learned counsel appearing for the 4^th Respondent oppose the Petition making submissi0on

¶29

in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which they has been structured. They contend that, after all the RTS proceedings do not give title to the subject property and that the entries are made only for the limited purpose of identifying tax payers and nothing beyond. If Petitioners are aggrieved, they should approach Civil Court seeking declaration of title to the subject land or part thereof. So contending, they seek dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶30

¶31

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶32

Parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, the Deputy Commissioner could not have said anything as to one-third portion of the land in question which aspect was not a part of Assistant Commissioner’s order; the Deputy Commissioner virtually as in a sense partitioned the subject one-third by making direction of the kind, and he could not have done it as rightly argued by learned Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner.

¶33

There is also force in the submission of

¶34

Petitioner’s counsel that it is a well settled position of law, that a revision Petitioner cannot be worse off in his own petition; at the most, revision petition could have been dismissed without making any direction in addition to what the Assistant Commissioner had done and just affirming the impugned order of Assistant Commissioner.

¶35

In the above circumstances, this Petition succeeds in part; that portion of the impugned order which directs

¶36

¶37

entry of names of all even in respect of one-third share of the property in question is quashed.

¶38

Ordered accordingly.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

Bsv

Mr. Udayshankar Shenoy v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Udayshankar Shenoy 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Gangamma Vs State of Karnataka

Muniyamma Vs the Government of Karnataka

Mohammad Sab Vs the State of Karnataka

Purushotham Vs Deputy Commissioner

S Jagadeesh Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri G Devendra Gowda Vs the Deputy Commissioner