Allowed

Anitha R Prabhu v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Sept 2024WP/1678/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition filed by petitioners challenging an order cancelling a land grant issued in 1966 to their vendor. The court quashed the order citing violations of natural justice due to lack of notice to interested parties. It also ordered the respondent to take cognizance of a previous Special Deputy Commissioner's order upholding the grant's genuineness and remitted the matter

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed. Matter remitted to Respondent No.2. Parties to be heard. Special Deputy Commissioner's order to be considered. Fresh orders to be passed by Respondent No.2.

Anitha R Prabhu Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:36723 WP No. 1678 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 1678 OF 2020 (KLR-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

ANITHA R PRABHU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/O S.R. PRABU, R/AT NO.866, 13^TH MAIN, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, NAGARBHAVI 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE 560 072.

¶7

A. RAJENDRA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O DEVAKI NANDANA A, R/AT NO.11354, 9^TH MAIN, RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYNAGAR II STAGE, BANGALORE 560 040. REP BY GPA HOLDER ANITHA R PRABHU

¶8

…PETITIONERS

¶9

(BY SRI. P MAHESH.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, NEAR DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, SAMPANGI RAMA NAGARA, BENGALURU 560 009.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:36723 WP No. 1678 of 2020

¶16

THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, NEAR DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, SAMPANGI RAMA NAGARA, BENGALURU 560 009.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. HARISHA A S., AGA)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.2.2018 PASSED BY THE R-1 AT ANNX-J IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE R-2 TO RESTORE THE RTC AND THE MUTATION REGISTER IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER AS IT WAS IN EXISTENCE PRIOR TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.02.2018 PASSED BY THE R-1 AT ANNX-J FORTHWITH.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

This captioned petition is filed assailing the impugned order dated 15.02.2018 passed by respondent No.1 as per Annexure-J wherein, the grant made in favour of petitioners' vendor namely Bhadramma which is dated 20.02.1966 is cancelled on the premise that the grant is fraudulent. The said order is under challenge by the transferee.

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:36723 WP No. 1678 of 2020

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and learned AGA. Perused the records.

¶27

The subject matter of the petition is a land bearing Sy.No.90 measuring 4 acres 38 guntas, situated at Ramohalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. One Bhadramma W/o Muniyappa claim to be unauthorized occupant of the petition land. She filed an application seeking regularization of the unauthorized occupancy. Petitioners contend that after due enquiry, there was a recommendation in favour of Bhadramma and the Grant Certificate was issued way back in 1966. The said Bhadramma acquired title to an extent of 4 Acres 38 Guntas and she sold 2 Acres in favour of 1^st petitioner and remaining 2 Acres 38 Guntas in favour of 2^nd petitioner under registered sale deed. Petitioners assert that their names were mutated in the revenue records. The Spl. Deputy Commissioner took cognizance of the alienation made by the original grantee namely Bhadramma.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:36723 WP No. 1678 of 2020

¶30

Petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order passed by respondent No.1. Petitioners have placed reliance on the order passed by Spl. Deputy Commissioner in RRT(2)CR.56/1996-97 vide Annexure-C. Petitioners contend that Spl. Deputy Commissioner has already initiated suo moto enquiry under section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and having examined the records, has come to the conclusion that the grant made in favour of Bhadramma is genuine and therefore, directed the Tahasildar to restore and continue the entries made in the revenue records in the name of Bhadramma in respect of land bearing Sy.No.90 measuring 4 Acres 38 Guntas. The Spl. Deputy Commissioner has also taken cognizance of alienation made by Bhadramma in favour of petitioner No.1 herein under registered sale deed dated 24.10.1996.

¶31

The short point that needs consideration at the hands

¶32

of this court is as to whether the impugned order of cancellation of grant passed by respondent No.2 vide

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:36723 WP No. 1678 of 2020

¶34

Annexure-J is sustainable. The order under challenge is liable to be set-aside primarily on two counts. Firstly, the respondent No.2 has unilaterally cancelled the grant without notifying the petitioners' vendor namely Bhadramma. Petitioners who were the subsequent transferees were never heard in the matter and therefore,

¶35

the impugned order of cancellation virtually takes away the valuable rights of the petitioners and is not sustainable on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

¶36

Petitioners to substantiate that the grant is genuine, have placed reliance on the order passed by the Spl. Deputy Commissioner, which is evidenced at Annexure-C. On examining the order passed by the Spl. Deputy Commissioner, what emerges is that the dispute in regard to the grant made in favour of Bhadramma was subjected to enquiry. The Spl. Deputy Commissioner on enquiry has come to the conclusion that the grant made in favour of petitioners' vendor is genuine. Spl. Deputy Commissioner having upheld the grant, has further taken cognizance of

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:36723 WP No. 1678 of 2020

¶39

alienation made by original grantee in favour of petitioners. There is a further direction to the Tahasildar to mutate the name of petitioners by taking cognizance of the alienation. If the authenticity/genuineness of the grant

¶40

was subjected to enquiry at the hands of the Spl. Deputy Commissioner under section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, this court is of the view that the impugned order thereby cancelling the grant made in favour of Bhadramma is liable to be set-aside. The respondent No.2 is bound to hear the petitioners and while conducting enquiry is also required to take cognizance of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 16.08.2010 which is evidenced at Annexure-C.

¶41

Had respondent No.2 conducted a proper enquiry, that would have in all probability altered the result of the case on hand. The impugned order has to go since respondent No.2 during the course of passing impugned

¶42

order has noted that there is no service of notice on the interested parties. This finding of fact is clearly reflected at

¶43

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:36723 WP No. 1678 of 2020

¶44

page 4 of the order under challenge. Even on this count,

¶45

the order passed by respondent No.2 is unsustainable.

¶46

For the foregoing reasons, this court passes the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

[i] Writ Petition is allowed; impugned order is hereby quashed.

¶49

[ii] Matter stands remitted back to respondent No.2;

¶50

petitioners shall place on record all relevant documents, more particularly, the order passed by Spl. Deputy Commissioner as evidenced at Annexure-C.

¶51

[iii] Respondent No.2 shall also examine the judgment rendered by this court in W.P.Nos.51551-52/2013 (KLRRES-PIL) between H.S.Doreswamy and another vs. State of Karnataka and others, disposed of on 26.08.2014 and shall take cognizance wherein, power to hold enquiry by

¶52

Spl. Deputy Commissioner was withdrawn and thus,

¶53

¶54

NC: 2024:KHC:36723 WP No. 1678 of 2020

¶55

enquiries were relegated to Deputy Commissioner, Spl.

¶56

Deputy Commissioner of IAS cadre.

¶57

[iv] After notifying all interested parties and after affording opportunities, the respondent No.2 shall pass orders, in accordance with law.

¶58