Quashed

Smt Shivarudramma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Sept 2024WP/18802/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed the Deputy Commissioner's order in mutation proceeding, holding it unsustainable due to procedural lapses, including failure to serve documents on the petitioner's counsel and reaching a decision based on an affidavit from a deceased party without verification.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of Deputy Commissioner quashed; matter remanded for reconsideration in accordance with principles of natural justice.

Smt Shivarudramma Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:35433 WP No. 18802 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 18802 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. SHIVARUDRAMMA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, PRESENTLY R/A CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI, R.T. NAGARA POST, BENGALURU 32

¶8

Digitally signed by YAMUNA K L Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶9

SMT. UMADEVI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, W/O LATE H. SRINIVAS, PRESENTLY R/A NO.36, VASANTHAPPA BLOCK, GANGANAGARA, 5^TH MAIN, R.T. NAGARA POST, BENGALURU 560 032

¶10

SMT. BHAGYALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, W/O NARAYANAMURTHY, PRESENTLY R/A NO.88, 3^RD CROSS, SEETHAPPA LAYOUT, CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI, BENGALURU 560 032

¶11

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:35433 WP No. 18802 of 2024

¶12

SMT. NAGAVENI, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, W/O JAGADISH H.V., PRESENTLY R/A NO.136, BG ROAD, HULLAHALLI, SAKALAWARA, BEGNALURU 560 083.

¶13

PREVIOUSLY R/AT NOSENOOR VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 560 105,

¶14

PETITIONER NO.1,3,3 ARE REP. BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SMT. UMADEVI.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. NAGESH S., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE 560 001

¶19

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT 560 001.

¶20

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT 560 001.

¶21

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:35433 WP No. 18802 of 2024

¶22

THE THASILDAR ANEKAL TALUK. BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 560 001.

¶23

SMT. MUNIYAMMA AGED MAJOR, W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, NOSENOOR VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 560 105,

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE R2 IN RP NO. 15/2024 AND ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT ORDER AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED. 09/02/2024 AND RECTIFICATION ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY R2 AND DISMISS THE RP NO. 15/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE NO. J FILED BY R5 AND ETC.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order passed by respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner in acting upon the affidavit filed by the learned counsel for respondent No.5 indicating that the petitioners have acknowledged respondent No.5's title and accordingly,

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:35433 WP No. 18802 of 2024

¶31

revision is allowed and consequently set aside the order passed by respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner in R.A(A)No.191/2012-2013 dated 22.04.2014 as per Annexure-H.

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the respondents-State.

¶33

This Court, vide order dated 21.08.2024, stayed the impugned order passed by respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner. Learned AGA was directed to secure instructions and place the original records before this Court. Learned AGA apart from placing the original records before this Court, has brought to the notice of this Court that respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner has recalled this order.

¶34

In examining the issues raised by the petitioners, this Court must address several critical aspects of procedural fairness and adherence to the principles of natural justice.

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:35433 WP No. 18802 of 2024

¶36

The learned Additional Government Advocate

¶37

argues that no further intervention is needed because the impugned order was subsequently recalled by respondent No.2, the Deputy Commissioner. However, this argument does not address the core issue: once a quasi-judicial authority has rendered a decision, it becomes functus officio, meaning it no longer possesses the jurisdiction to alter or review its order. This principle underscores that a quasi-judicial authority must adhere to procedural correctness and cannot revisit its decisions once made.

¶38

A thorough review of the case records reveals significant procedural lapses. Quasi-judicial authorities are obligated to follow established procedures and principles of natural justice, which include providing fair hearing and opportunities to all parties involved. The petitioners engaged legal counsel and appeared on 29.06.2015, yet the matter remained pending and was adjourned, with no proceedings taking place until 2024. This delay and lack of

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:35433 WP No. 18802 of 2024

¶40

progress reflect a failure to adhere to fair procedural

¶41

practices and the principles of natural justice.

¶42

Furthermore, it is argued that respondent No.2, while deciding on the rights of the parties in mutation proceedings, failed to follow due process. Specifically, the Deputy Commissioner should have ensured that all procedural requirements were met before making a decision based on submissions from adversarial parties. Respondent No.5 submitted an affidavit claiming that the petitioners had relinquished their rights. However, respondent No.2 should have required the production of this affidavit to the petitioners' counsel before proceeding. The failure to do so undermines the fairness of the proceedings.

¶43

Moreover, it has come to light that respondent No.5 passed away on 25.01.2024, yet the order was issued on 09.02.2024. This indicates that respondent No.5 was deceased at the time the order was made, rendering the proceedings invalid as they could not lawfully continue.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:35433 WP No. 18802 of 2024

¶46

This crucial fact was overlooked by respondent No.2, further compounding the procedural irregularities.

¶47

The Supreme Court of India has consistently emphasized that quasi-judicial authorities must adhere to principles of fairness and provide an opportunity to all parties to present their case. In A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262, the Supreme Court held that quasi-judicial bodies must follow principles of natural justice, which include providing a fair hearing and an opportunity to be heard before making any adverse decisions. The Court highlighted that procedural fairness is essential to ensure that decisions are made impartially and based on a full understanding of the facts.

¶48

Similarly, in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of

¶49

India (1978) 1 SCC 248, the Supreme Court reiterated the importance of adhering to procedural fairness and natural justice. The Court emphasized that any action affecting the rights of individuals must be conducted with fairness, transparency, and respect for due process.

¶50

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:35433 WP No. 18802 of 2024

¶51

Given these judicial precedents and the

¶52

identified procedural shortcomings in the current case, it is evident that the impugned order, made under flawed procedures and assumptions, does not meet the required standards of fairness. The Deputy Commissioner’s decision to base the order on an affidavit without proper verification and to proceed despite the death of respondent No.5, renders the order unsustainable. As such, the impugned order must be quashed to uphold the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

¶53

For the forgoing reasons, this court passes the following;

¶54

ORDER

¶55

i. The impugned order passed by respondent No.2, the Deputy Commissioner, is hereby quashed;

¶56

ii. The matter is remanded to respondent No.2 for reconsideration in accordance with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness;

¶57

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:35433 WP No. 18802 of 2024

¶58

iii. Respondent No.2 is directed to ensure that all procedural requirements are met, including providing an opportunity for all parties to be heard and to review the affidavit in question, considering the correct factual position, including the death of respondent No.5;

¶59

iv. Respondent No.2 shall issue a fresh order after conducting a thorough review and ensuring compliance with fair procedural practices and principles of natural justice;

¶60

v. The parties are directed to appear before respondent No.2 on 4.10 2024 from the date of receipt of this order to facilitate the reconsideration process.

¶61

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶62

HDK

Smt Shivarudramma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shivarudramma 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Chowdamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Doddegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Adhinarayan Reddy Vs Department of Revenue

Sri Y R Chandrashekar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Chandrashekhar Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Anupama Vs State of Karnataka