Allowed

Smt Leela Bai v. the Special Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC14 Jul 2022WP/4906/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition seeking to quash an order deleting a revenue entry. The Court remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner to provide the petitioner a fair opportunity to file objections and produce documents regarding a historical land transaction.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Deputy Commissioner was set aside and the matter remitted to provide a hearing opportunity to the petitioner.

Smt Leela Bai Vs the Special Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.4906/2020 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT LEELA BAI W/O BIKIMCHAND, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/T SINGAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH ADDITIONAL TALUK, BENGALURU-560 064. …PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.VIJAYA KUMAR K.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, D.C.OFFICE BUILDING, KANDAYA BHAVANA, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001

¶12

STATE OF KARNTAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETRY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001 …RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SRI R.SREENIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-2)

¶14

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.08.2010 PASSED BY THE R-1 (ANNX-A) HOLDING THE SAME AS ILLEGAL, ETC.

¶16

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

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The proceedings was initiated under sub-clause (3) of Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 by the Deputy Commissioner on the basis of the letter of the Tahsildar dated 30.12.2008 in which the Tahsildar has stated that Sy.No.6 of Singahalli, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, had been classified as Gomal land and yet the entries in respect of 4 acres had been found in the name of the petitioner herein.

¶19

The Deputy Commissioner issued notices in the said proceedings and the petitioner entered appearance through her counsel. However, no objections were filed and the Deputy Commissioner has noted in his order that the counsel for the petitioner remained absent throughout.

¶20

¶21

The Deputy Commissioner has thereafter proceeded to come to the conclusion that there were no land grant records forthcoming in the Taluka Office to support the entry made in favour of the petitioner and he, therefore, proceeded to hold that the revenue entries in the name of the petitioner was an unauthorized entry and has directed for deletion of the petitioner's name from the records and has directed the name of the Government to be entered in the revenue records.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was completely unaware of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and she was also unable to trace the counsel, who had been engaged to appear before the Deputy Commissioner. He also submits that the petitioner's vendor had purchased the property in question under a registered sale deed dated 18^th March 1968, in which there is a clear recital that the land was a granted land. He also submits that there are revenue records indicating that the petitioner's vendor's name had been

¶23

¶24

entered in the revenue records as a grantee. He submits that the said documents were not produced before the Deputy Commissioner since her counsel did not appear at all.

¶25

In my view, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to file her objections and also documents to substantiate her claim over the said land.

¶26

Since the Deputy Commissioner has basically come to the conclusion that there were no records produced before him relating to any grant, the entry had been deleted. However, since there is material available with the petitioner to indicate that there was a transaction in respect of the property way back in the year 1968, it would be appropriate that the petitioner be given an opportunity.

¶27

I, therefore, set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and the matter shall stand remitted to the Deputy Commissioner with a direction to the Deputy

¶28

¶29

Commissioner to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to file her objections and also the documents. The Deputy Commissioner shall thereafter hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶30

The petitioner shall appear before the Deputy Commissioner on 2^nd August 2022 without expecting any

¶31

fresh notice from the Deputy Commissioner.

¶32

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

KNM/-

Smt Leela Bai v. the Special Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Leela Bai v. the Special 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

Sri.T.K.Krishna Prasad Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Y T Narendra Babu Vs the State of Karnataka

S. Shivaram Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Vimala Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Anjula Vs the State of Karnataka

S.Mohammed Ali Vs the State of Karnataka