Allowed

Sri Mallesh v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Oct 2023WP/2843/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner sought direction to release compensation awarded under land acquisition Act. Contention arose that Assistant Commissioner incorrectly issued an endorsement treating a Civil Court decree as ultra vires. Judgment holds that administrative officers lack jurisdiction to impeach judicial orders arising in suit proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The endorsement dated 18.07.2022 issued by Respondent No.2 is set aside. Petitioner allowed to submit certificate; Authority to release compensation within 6 weeks of production.

Sri Mallesh Vs State of Karnataka — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:36367 WP No. 2843 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2843 OF 2023 (LA-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI MALLESH S/O NARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT HANIKEY VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, BELUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 571 231.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SHARATHKUMAR SHETTY.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶13

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶14

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SHAKALESHPURA SUB DIVISION SHAKALESHPURA - 573 127.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1 & R2;

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF

¶20

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:36367 WP No. 2843 of 2023

¶21

CERTIORARI BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER/ENDORSEMENT DATED 18/07/2022 IN BOO.SWOO.02/2012-13, PASSED BY THE OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/2ND RESPONDENT, SAKALESHPURA SUB DIVISION, SAKALESHPURA AS PER ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Present petition is filed seeking setting aside the endorsement dated 18.07.2022 passed by the respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner as per Annexure-C and for further direction to the respondent No.2 to release the compensation award amount to the petitioner in terms of the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belur in P and SC No. 01/2019 as per Annexure-B.

¶25

Case of the petitioner is that, he is an adopted son

¶26

of one Sri. Lakkaiah. That the subject property originally belonged to one Sri. Dodda Narasaiah who had two sons by name Sri. Putta Narasaiah and Sri. Lakkaiah and that in a family partition, subject property was allotted to the share of said Sri. Lakkaiah, petitioner being his adopted son, is stated to be his only legal heir. It appears that the subject property namely property bearing khata No. 215, Hanekey Village,

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:36367 WP No. 2843 of 2023

¶28

Kasaba Hobli, Belur Taluk, Hassan District was acquired by the respondent-authority for the purpose of extension of cannel and compensation in a sum of Rs.8,90,774/- had been deposited. When the petitioner approached the respondent-authority for release of said amount he was informed to obtain necessary order from a Competent Court of Law. Hence, the petitioner as accordingly made an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act in P and SC No. 01/2019 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belur and by an order dated 27.11.2019 the said petition in P and SC No. 01/2019 was allowed and order was passed holding the petitioner being the only legal heir of said Lakkaiah was entitled for the compensation amount, the said order was produced by the petitioner before the respondentauthority receipt of the same respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner issued an endorsement produced at Annexure-C holding that the said order as ultra-vires and he rejected the requisition of the petitioner. Taking note of the aforesaid endorsement this Court had directed learned AGA to obtain the affidavit of the concerned providing

¶29

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:36367 WP No. 2843 of 2023

¶30

explanations for the reasons assigned in the endorsement in rejecting the representation of the petitioner. The officer who passed the impugned order is by name Sri. Pratheek Bayal. Today learned AGA files an affidavit sworn to by one Dr. Shruthi, presently working as Assistant Commissioner, Sakleshpura Sub-Division, Sakleshpura Taluk, Hassan District. Though the filing of affidavit does not meet the requirement of the order passed by this Court to put the issue at rest, same is taken on record. Paragraph 3 and 4 of the affidavit reads as under:

¶31

" 3. I state that, the petitioner has challenged impugned endorsement issued by the Respondent No.2 as per Annexure-C dated 18.07.2022. In the endorsement, the Respondent No.2, has stated that the Judgment passed by the Civil Judge, Beluru in P&SC.No.1/2019 is ultra vires and for the reasons stated in the said endorsement, there is no provision to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner.

¶32

4. This Respondent humbly submits that, I tender my apology with respect of Endorsement issued by the RespondentAuthority, there is no such intention to disobey the order passed by the Hon'ble Court. Therefore, there is no such intention to passing the above impugned endorsement. Further kindly accept my apology."

¶33

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:36367 WP No. 2843 of 2023

¶34

Needless to state that the Assistant Commissioner

¶35

has no authority or jurisdiction to sit on appeal or in judicial review of the order passed by a Competent Court of Law and issue an endorsement as issued in the instant case.

¶36

The endorsement being one without authority and patently illegal is required to be set aside, and the same is set aside. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

¶37

The petitioner is at liberty to submit certificate issued by the Competent Court pursuant to the order at Annexure-B to the respondent-Authority. On production of such document/certificate respondent-Authority shall proceed to release the amount in favour of the petitioner, within six (6) weeks from the date of production of such certificate.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Sri Mallesh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mallesh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Manjunatha Seva Trust Vs Bengaluru Development Authority

Sri C M Venkataravanan Vs State of Karnataka

Sri H T Sathyanarayan Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Sri. Muneshwaraswamy Temple Development Trust (Regd), Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Sri. Venkatesh @ Venkateshappa, Vs the State of Karnataka

Siddalingaiah @ Siddalinge Gowda Vs State of Karnataka