Allowed

Smt. Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Nov 2022WP/56816/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition seeking to quash revenue orders made under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The Court held that principles of natural justice require an opportunity of hearing before adverse entries are made in revenue records.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner; matter remitted to the Assistant Commissioner to decide afresh after giving an opportunity

Smt. Lakshmi Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.56816 OF 2018(KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. LAKSHMI, W/O LATE M NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶8

ABHILASH, S/O LATE M NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶9

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.127/5, OPP BENGALURU HIGH SCHOOL, BULL TEMPLE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 019. (NOTE:M NAGARAJU, WHO IS THE PETITIONER IN REVISION PETITION NO.155/2012-13 EXPIRED ON 12.02.2017, AND HENCE HIS LEGAL HEIRS ARE THE PETITIONERS HEREIN)

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI.KRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, K G ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009.

¶15

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, K G ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009.

¶17

THE TASHILDAR, ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 562 106.

¶18

AMANULLA, S/O LATE HUSSAIN SAB, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT MARAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU –562 105.

¶19

… RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.C N MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R1-R4; SRI.V K NARAYANASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.04.2016 PASSED BY THE R-2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU IN REVISION PETITION NO.155/2012-13 (AT ANNEXURE-A); AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.08.2011 PASSED BY THE R-3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU IN RA (A) 194/2011-12 (AT ANNEXURE-B) AND ETC.,

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petitioners are knocking at the doors of Writ Court

¶25

for assailing Assistant Commissioner’s order dated 09.08.2011 and Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 04.04.2016 respectively made under Section 136(2) &

¶26

¶27

136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 whereby certain entries adverse to them have been directed to be made in the Revenue Records concerning the subject property. Learned counsel for the Petitioners seeks voiding of the Assistant Commissioner’s order on the ground that it was made sans any notice to his clients and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner could not have dismissed their Revision Petition No.155/2012-13 by making the order dated 4.4.2016. He also hastens to add that, where there is a registered document, the revenue authorities simply take it with presumptive validity and make entries on that basis.

¶28

2. After service of notice, the Respondents have

¶29

entered appearance through the learned AGA and the private counsel, who oppose the Petition making submission in justification of the impugned orders and the reasons on which they have been constructed. They contend that the dispute relating to the title of subject property cannot be adjudged by the revenue authorities

¶30

¶31

and therefore, the impugned orders which leave liberty to the Petitioners to litigate before the Civil Court, cannot be faltered. So contending, they seek dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this court is inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter inasmuch as the orders could not have been made adverse to a party without giving an opportunity of hearing to him. True it is that the orders made in the RTS proceedings have nothing to do with the title to the property involved; however, the revenue entries ordinarily are acted upon by several statutory authorities and lending agencies. Therefore, persons against whom some orders are to be made, have to be heard in the matter, as rightly argued by counsel for the Petitioners, more particularly when the principles of natural justice at times are treated as being part of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶33

¶34

There is force in the submission of learned

¶35

counsel appearing for the private Respondent that by virtue of the sale deed dated 3.3.1997, what the Petitioners would get is the property over which their vendors had title under the registered sale deed dated 15.3.1963 and therefore, it cannot be more than 20 guntas, the remaining being with his client. This is on the maxis Nemo dat quod non habet. However, this is a matter which the authorities have to address in accordance with law. Learned counsel appearing for the private Respondent is also justified in contending that when there are multiple registered documents, the revenue authorities have to take a call on the prima facie collective effect of the same, so that no entries remain in abeyance. However, this does not mean that they can undertake the adjudicatory exercise, which prerogative exclusively lies with the Civil Courts.

¶36

In the above circumstances, this Petition is allowed in part; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned

¶37

¶38

order; the matter is remitted to the portals of the Assistant Commissioner for deciding afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners as well.

¶39

It is open to the Petitioners to seek impleadment before the Assistant Commissioner by moving an appropriate application within four weeks.

¶40

The Petitioners and the 5^th Respondent are put to notice through their counsel to appear before the Assistant Commissioner on 12.12.2022 and seek further

¶41

instructions at his hands.

¶42

All contentions are kept open.

¶43

Costs made easy.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Bsv

Smt. Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Lakshmi 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

Sri. Munivenkatappa Vs the Special Deputy Commissioner

Smt Narasamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Earaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ronald Pereira Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Munivenkatareddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri C R Karthik Vs Assistant Commissioner