Allowed

M G Suresh v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Dec 2023WP/11263/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging orders passed against a deceased petitioner's father in a land dispute. The Court held orders void for being served on a dead person, quashed them, and remitted the matter to the Assistant Commissioner to implead legal representatives.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside and matter remitted to Assistant Commissioner to implead legal representatives and pass judgment afresh.

M G Suresh Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:45386 WP No. 11263 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 11263 OF 2021 (SCST)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M G SURESH S/O LATE M G MAHESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, MALLAPURA HARANAHALLI HOBLI SHIVAMOGGA TALUK-577 201 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. P N HARISH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶13

Digitally signed by SUNITHA GANGARAJU Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT

¶15

M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA-577201

¶17

The ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA SUB DIVISION SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577201

¶18

SHIVAKUMAR S/O KRISHNAPPA

¶19

KAVYA D/O KRISHNAPPA

¶20

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:45386 WP No. 11263 of 2021

¶21

SAROJAMMA W/O KRISHNAPPA RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6 ARE RESIDENT OF MALLAPURA GRAMA MYDOLALU SHIVAMOGGA TALUK-577 201 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶22

SIDDAPPA S/O GURUVANNA MALLAPURA, MYDOLALU SHIVAMOGGA TALUK-577 201 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. CHIDAMBARA G.S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R6 SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 SRI. NANDEESH C.B., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K. CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS DTD. 14.11.2019 PASSED BY R-2 IN SC/ST NO.7/2018 PRODUCED AS PER ANNX-G AND THE ORDER OF THE R-3 DTD. 22.09.2017 PASSED IN PTCL NO.12/2015-16 PRODUCED AS PER ANNX-E TO THE PETITION.

¶26

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

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the

¶29

order passed by the second respondent dated 14.11.2019

¶30

vide Annexure-G and the order of the respondent No.3

¶31

dated 22.09.2017 vide Annexure-E.

¶32

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:45386 WP No. 11263 of 2021

¶33

Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:

¶34

The father of the petitioner purchased the land in question under registered sale deed dated 11.03.1970 from one Siddappa and the said sale was questioned by grantee of the land by filing the application under Section 5 of PTCL Act before the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 vide order dated 16.09.1980, held that the sale is null and void, but however did not ordered for restoration of the land in favour of grantee. The order of Assistant Commissioner has reached finality. Since Siddappa did not challenged the same, father of the petitioner filed an appeal against the order passed by the respondent No.3 before the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 dismissed the appeal filed by the father of the petitioner and confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal filed by the father of the petitioner vide order dated 06.04.1992. Father of the petitioner died on 08.07.2007. The notice came to be issued by the

¶35

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:45386 WP No. 11263 of 2021

¶36

Assistant Commissioner on 22.04.2016, to the father of the petitioner and thereafter an order was came to be passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 22.09.2017. The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner preferred the appeal before the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 dismissed the appeal. Hence, this writ petition.

¶37

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶38

learned counsel for the respondents.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶40

notice was issued to the father of the petitioner on 22.04.2016 , by the time notice was issued, father of the petitioner was no more and he submits that the proceedings initiated by the respondent No.3 is against a dead person. Further, he submits that the order passed by the respondent No.3 is void and the respondent no.2 without considering the said aspect has proceeded to affirm the order passed by the respondent No.3. Hence, he

¶41

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:45386 WP No. 11263 of 2021

¶42

submits that the orders passed by the respondent Nos.2

¶43

and 3 be set aside and the writ petition be allowed.

¶44

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6 fairly concede the order as against the dead person. Hence, he submits that writ petition be disposed of and remit the matter to the Assistant Commissioner to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with law.

¶45

Perused the records and considered the

¶46

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶47

Admittedly, Siddappa filed an application under

¶48

Section 5 of PTCL Act in the year 1979-80 before the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 vide order dated 16.09.1980 allowed the application and declared the registered sale deed as null and void and declined to restore the land in favour of the applicant. The father of the petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner preferred the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. Deputy Commissioner dismissed

¶49

¶50

NC: 2023:KHC:45386 WP No. 11263 of 2021

¶51

the appeal filed by the father of the petitioner. Thereafter, father of the petitioner died on 08.07.2007. Neither grantee nor the respondent Nos.4 to 6 have initiated any proceedings or taken any steps to execute the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 16.09.1980. Again Assistant Commissioner issued notice dated 22.04.2016 to the father of the petitioner, by the time notice was issued, the father of the petitioner was no more on 08.07.2007. The respondent No.3 initiated the proceedings against the father of the petitioner and passed the order. The order passed by the respondent No.3 is against the dead person. The order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is against a dead person. Hence, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is nullify. Further, Deputy Commissioner without examining the said aspect has dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is against the dead person. Hence, on these grounds impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2023:KHC:45386 WP No. 11263 of 2021

¶54

8. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

The writ petition is allowed.

¶57

The impugned orders dated 14.11.2019 and 22.09.2017 vide Annexures-G and E are set aside.

¶58

The matter is remitted to the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner is directed to implead legal representatives of the petitioner herein in the said proceedings and thereafter Assistant Commissioner is directed to hear the parties and pass judgment in accordance with law.

¶59

Parties are directed to appear before the Assistant Commissioner on 10.01.2024.

¶60

SD/JUDGE

¶61

SKS

M G Suresh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M G Suresh 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

Mrs. Merilyn Gonsalves Vs Annette Vaz

Dr Sumit Chandrakant Kadam Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Chandu Educational Trust Vs State of Karnataka

Jayaramu Vs Krishnappa

S Vasanth Bhandary Vs Mrs Prama Raghava

Lt Col (Retd) Bindu P Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Karnataka