Remanded

Smt. Ansuyamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Nov 2022WP/843/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Karnataka remitted the matter regarding a property dispute back to the District Registrar, quashing a preliminary communication issued without notice to the petitioner. The Court held that since the communication pertained to disputed ownership with civil consequences, the petitioner must be heard before any final order is passed.

What did the court decide?

The matter is remitted to the District Registrar to hear both parties, verify records, and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

Smt. Ansuyamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 843 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 843 OF 2021 (GM-ST/RN)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. ANSUYAMMA, W/O SRI. ASHWATH NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/A KODIHALLI VILLAGE,

¶9

VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK - 560 087.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. P.N.MANMOHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS, KANDAYA BHAVANA, 8^TH FLOOR, K G ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶16

THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, SS COMPLEX, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,

¶17

¶18

WP No. 843 of 2021

¶19

MB ROAD, KOLAR TOWN, KOLAR - 563 101.

¶20

THE ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR SUB-DIVISION, NEAR COURT CIRCLE, KOLAR - 563 101.

¶21

TAHSILDAR, MALUR TALUK, MINI VIDHANASOUDHA, MASTI ROAD, MALUR TOWN, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130.

¶22

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BENGALURU.

¶23

SMT. M. SATHYAMMA, SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HER LRS.,

¶24

a) SRI..KRISHNAPPA C., S/O LATE CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, b) SMT.RAMYA K., D/O SRI.KRISHNAPPA C., AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, c) SRI.ANIL KUMAR, S/O SRI.KRISHNAPPA C., AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, d) SMT.ARCHANA K., D/O SRI.KRISHNAPPA C., AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, ALL ARE R/A NO.3,

¶25

¶26

WP No. 843 of 2021

¶27

4^TH CROSS, DVG ROAD, RAMAKRISHNAPPA LAYOUT, NAGASHETTY HALLI, RMV II STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 094.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI.N.KUMAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R5; SRI.P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R6; SRI.SANDESH J CHOUTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI.B.KESHAVA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R-7(a) TO (d))

¶30

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED REPORT DATED 11.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE R-3 DISTRICT REGISTRAR, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT AT ANNEXURE –A AND ETC.,

¶31

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question order dated 11-12-2017 passed by the 3^rd respondent/District Registrar of Stamps.

¶34

Heard Sri P.N.Manmohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri N.Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 5, Sri P.V. Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6

¶35

and Sri Sandesh J.Chouta, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 7(a) to (d).

¶36

¶37

WP No. 843 of 2021

¶38

Brief facts that lead the petitioner to this Court, in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-

¶39

The property described as schedule property in the petition forms the subject matter of the lis. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the schedule property measuring 6 acres and 5 guntas. The purchase of the said property is by way of three sale deeds – two on 31-07-1995 and the 3^rd one on 2-08-1995. One Patel Munishamireddy sells the schedule property by way a registered sale deed dated 30^th October 1995, in favour of the petitioner, and later, sells the chunk of the property in favour of 7^th respondent, one Smt. M.Sathyamma (now deceased) in the year 1999. There was no qualm about respective sales or purchase of properties between the parties.

¶40

The dispute arose when the State Government issued a preliminary notification in the year 2012 seeking to acquire the schedule property. Preliminary notification ends in a final notification in the year 2020. The dispute in the case at hand

¶41

¶42

WP No. 843 of 2021

¶43

revolves around the period between the preliminary notification

¶44

and the final notification. The issue in the lis is not concerning veracity of the notification.

¶45

The petitioner submits a representation on 05-09-2017 to the revenue authorities seeking correction of mutation entry on the ground that it was an error insofar as the name of the petitioner as being the owner of the schedule property was missing. The 7^th respondent also submits a representation to correct entries in the mutation register of the schedule property. A representation is also made on 4-12-2017 to the District Registrar of Stamps. The District Registrar of Stamps gets the records pertaining to the schedule property, verified and records certain facts concerning the schedule property. He then communicates to the Inspector General of Stamps seeking permission to conduct an inquiry into the issue in terms of what he has discovered on verification of records. The said communication to the Inspector General of Stamps results in institution of proceedings appropriately. The proceedings were two in number – one being registration of a complaint by the 7^th respondent before the jurisdictional police on which a first

¶46

¶47

WP No. 843 of 2021

¶48

information report is registered and the other inquiry at the hands of the District Registrar of Stamps.

¶49

The District Registrar of Stamps issues notices to rival

¶50

parties seeking to conduct an enquiry in terms of what he had discovered and recorded in the communication made to the Inspector General of Stamps. During the pendency of these proceedings respondent No.7 knocks the doors of this Court in Writ Petition No.21401 of 2019 seeking consideration of her representation made to the revenue authorities for entering her name in the revenue records. The petitioner was made a party initially as respondent No.6 in the proceedings. Before the matter could be taken up for consideration a memo was filed seeking dispensation of notice to the 6^th respondent. This Court disposed of the writ petition to consider the representation submitted by the 7^th respondent, petitioner therein within a period of 2 months. After passing of the said order comes the final notification by the KIADB taking up the preliminary notification dated 28-03-2012 to its logical end. After the final notification, the petitioner has knocked at the doors of this Court calling in question the communication dated

¶51

¶52

WP No. 843 of 2021

¶53

11-12-2017 not addressed to him but between the District

¶54

Registrar and the Inspector General of Stamps.

¶55

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend with vehemence that the District Registrar of Stamps could not have drawn plethora of facts in his communication which would have a bearing on the right of the petitioner without hearing him. It is his submission that the petitioner ought to have been heard prior to any communication of the kind issued by him. The learned counsel would further contend that there were several documents that would demonstrate sale between the petitioner and Patel Munishamireddy and revenue entries were all prior to the date on which Patel Munishamireddy sells the schedule property in favour of 7^th respondent in the year 1999. He would seek quashment of the communication.

¶56

On the other hand, the learned senior counsel appearing for respondents No. 7(a) to (d), legal representative of Smt. Sathyamma would refute the submissions to contend that setting aside of a communication need not be done as it is

¶57

¶58

WP No. 843 of 2021

¶59

only an internal correspondence between the District Registrar

¶60

and the Inspector General of Stamps seeking suitable directions or permission to conduct an inquiry into the issue. The District Registrar has anyway issued notice for conduct of an inquiry and production of documents. He would contend that despite two notices the petitioner has not bothered to appear before the District Registrar. Having not appeared, the petitioner would have no right to contend that entire proceedings are in violation of the principles of natural justice. He would further contend that the petition itself is filed after four years of the communication. The petition should be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as well.

¶61

The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 5 would submit that there are two civil suits pending before the competent civil Court filed by certain parties in which respondent No.7 is a defendant and, therefore, disbursement of compensation would come about only after the issue getting free of legal hurdles.

¶62

¶63

WP No. 843 of 2021

¶64

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record.

¶65

The afore-narrated facts, link in the chain of events and dates are a matter of record. Both the petitioner and respondent No.7 claim to be in possession of the properties having purchased from a solitary vendor, Patel Munishamireddy. The purchase of land in terms of records is with a gap of four years. The petitioner claims to have purchased the land in the year 1995 and the 7^th respondent in the year 1999. This forms meet of the matter in the communication by the District Registrar to the Inspector General of Stamps, the impugned communication.

¶66

The aforesaid communication comes about on two representations – one by the petitioner seeking correction of entries in the mutation register which was acceded to and the other by the 7^th respondent seeking deletion of the name of the petitioner alleging fraud against the petitioner. It is those representations that resulted in a fact finding exercise by the

¶67

10 -

¶68

WP No. 843 of 2021

¶69

District Registrar which in turn results in the impugned communication.

¶70

The aftermath of the communication is what concerns

¶71

the issue before this Court. The District Registrar claims to have issued notices seeking attendance of the petitioner along with documents to demonstrate the claim as also to the 7^th respondent. The 7^th respondent has appeared before the District Registrar while the petitioner appears to have been absent from appearance. It is on this submission this Court had directed the learned Additional Government Advocate to produce records to demonstrate service of notices upon the petitioner on 22.02.2018 and 25-02-2019 to appear before the District Registrar. The Additional Government Advocate even as on date has not produced any record to demonstrate notice being issued and served upon the petitioner. Therefore, it is taken that the petitioner was not notified by the District Registrar. Though the name of the petitioner appears in the notice, there is no document produced by Government with regard to service of such notice upon the petitioner. The proceedings have not culminated into any order being passed in

¶72

11 -

¶73

WP No. 843 of 2021

¶74

the matter; it is still pending consideration. In the proceedings if the District Registrar were to pass orders without hearing the petitioner, it would be a proceeding in violation of principles of natural justice as the inquiry would undoubtedly result in dire civil consequences. Therefore, if the order at the culmination would result in civil consequences, it cannot be the result of a proceeding conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶75

On this short ground that the petitioner was not notified for production of any documents, I deem it appropriate to remit the matter back to the District Registrar to hear both the parties – the petitioner and the 7^th respondent, consider their respective documents produced or would be produced and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. In the said proceedings the District Registrar would not be bound or influenced by the findings that are made in the impugned communication to the Inspector General of Stamps, as they form only a preliminary observation. Therefore, it is for the District Registrar to pass appropriate order after verification of records and considering them in accordance with law. Since

¶76

12 -

¶77

WP No. 843 of 2021

¶78

both parties are represented before this Court, a date is fixed

¶79

for the parties to appear before the District Registrar who shall

¶80

later regulate further procedure of the case.

¶81

For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:

¶82

O R D E R

¶83

I. The writ petition is disposed.

¶84

II. The matter is remitted back to the hands of the third respondent - District Registrar.

¶85

III. The petitioner and the seventh respondent shall appear before the District Registrar on 02.12.2022 at 3.00 p.m., without awaiting any notice from the hands of the District Registrar.

¶86

IV. On the appearance of the parties, the Registrar shall grant them reasonable time to produce documents that they would seek to rely upon and further proceedings be conducted thereon. The third respondent is free to regulate the procedure.

¶87

13 -

¶88

WP No. 843 of 2021

¶89

V. The proceeding before the District Registrar shall be

¶90

concluded within eight weeks from 02.12.2022, if not earlier.

¶91

All contentions of all the parties shall remain open.

¶92

Sd/JUDGE

¶93

SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Smt. Ansuyamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ansuyamma v. the State of Karnataka

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

Sri K S Arun Kumar Vs the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

M/S Pushpagiri Power Ltd. Vs the Registrar of Company

M/S Vinaya Enterprises Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri P Vijaya Sekhar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri P Manjunath Vs the State by Karnataka

M/S Palaka Granite Quarry Vs Union Bank of India