Allowed

Smt. Anjali S/O Shankar Rao Kottarki and Anr. v. the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Karnataka HC26 Nov 2024WP/216352/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a Deputy Commissioner's communication quantifying a demand of Rs.50.53 lakhs under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the Tahsildar's notice based on it. The High Court found no notice or opportunity of hearing was given, quashed both documents and left respondents free to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Anjali S/O Shankar Rao Kottarki and Anr. Vs the… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

��

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 216352 OF 2020 (KLR-CON)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. ANJALI

¶11

W/O SHANKAR RAO KOTTARKI

¶12

AGE 60 YEARS OCCBUSINESS

¶13

R/O BAVAPUR, NOW RESIDING AT H NO 9-7-155 VENKATADARI

¶14

NIWAS BEHIND

¶15

GANDHI GUNJ POLICE STATION

¶16

BIDAR 585 401.

¶17

SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LR, P-2 I.E., SHANKRA RAO S/O DASHARATH RAO KOTTARKI

¶18

SHANKAR RAO

¶19

S/O DASHARATH RAO KOTTARKI

¶20

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶21

OCC BUSINESS

¶22

Digitally signed by LUCYGRACE Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶23

R/O BAVAPUR, NOW RESIDING AT H NO 9-7-155 VENKATADRI NIWAS BEHIND

¶24

GANDHI GUNJ POLICE STATION

¶25

BIDAR 585 401.

¶26

…PETITIONERS

¶27

(BY SRI. RAVI B PATIL,ADVOCATE)

¶28

AND:

¶29

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

¶30

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M S BUILDING BENGALURU 560 001.

¶31

THE ACCOUNT GENERAL (A & E, ACCOUNT AUDIT 1 & 2)

¶32

PARK HOUSE ROAD BANGALURU 560 001.

¶33

¶34

��

¶35

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BIDAR DISTRICT

¶36

BIDAR 585 401.

¶37

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER D C OFFICE BIDAR 585 401.

¶38

THE TAHASILDAR BIDAR TALUKA BIDAR 585 401.

¶39

…RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR. R. TENGLI, AGA)

¶41

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI THEREBY QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 06.01.2020 AS AT ANNEXURE-J PASSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT AUTHORITY BEARING FILE NO.DCB/CR/2019-20/386 BASED ON THE ORDER DATED 23.10.2019 BEARING NO.BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AUTHORITY AS AT ANENXURE-HJ AS ALLEGED AND ARBITRARY AND BEYOND THE SCOPE OF PROVISIONS OF LAW, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶42

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

¶43

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶44

ORAL ORDER

¶45

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)

¶46

In this petition, petitioners seek for the following reliefs:-

¶47

“ A. Issue a writ of Certiorari thereby quash the impugned notice dated: 06.01.2020 as At Annexure-J passed by the 5^th respondent authority bearing file NO. DCB/CR/2019-20/386, based on the order dated:

¶48

��

¶49

¶50

23.10.2019 bearing No.: �� by the 3^rd respondent authority as at Annexure-H as alleged and arbitrary and beyond the scope of provisions of law, in the interest of justice.

¶51

B. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to 5 from making any alleged demand towards the fine amount as assessed invoking the provisions of Sec. 96(4) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act as against the petitioners.

¶52

C. Pass any order or orders which may be deemed fit by this Hon’ble court, in the circumstances of the case.”

¶53

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶54

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that vide Annexure-H dated 23.10.2009, the 3^rd respondent – Deputy Commissioner addressed a communication to the 5^th respondent – Tahsildar unilaterally quantifying the amount payable by the petitioners as Rs.50.53 lakhs. In pursuance of the same, the 5^th respondent – Tahsildar issued the impugned Notice at Annexure-J dated 06.01.2020 calling upon the petitioners to pay the aforesaid sum. Aggrieved by the impugned Notice and impugned

¶55

¶56

��

¶57

communication, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶58

A perusal of the impugned communication at Annexure-H dated 23.10.2019 addressed by the 3^rd respondent – Deputy Commissioner to the 5^th respondent – Tahsildar, unilaterally quantifying the alleged amount payable by the petitioners will indicate that before recording a finding and coming to the conclusion that the petitioners are liable to pay the aforesaid sum of Rs.50.53 lakhs, neither the 3^rd respondent nor the 5^th respondent notified the petitioners nor provided any opportunity to the petitioners or hear them and as such, the impugned communication at Annexure –H dated 23.10.2019 which was followed by the impugned Notice at Annexure-J dated 06.01.2020 are clearly violative of principle of natural justice warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.

¶59

In the result, I pass the following:-

¶60

ORDER

¶61

(i) Petition is hereby allowed.

¶62

5 - ��

¶63

(ii) The impugned communication at Annexure-H dated 23.10.2019 and impugned notice at Annexure-J dated 06.01.2020 are hereby quashed.

¶64

(iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the concerned respondents to take appropriate steps against the petitioners in accordance with law after duly notifying the petitioners and providing them sufficient and reasonable opportunity and hearing them in accordance with law.

¶65

(iv) It is made clear that in the event, the respondents were to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioners, the petitioners would be entitled to submit their replies, documents, pleadings etc., to the same and contest the proceedings in accordance with law.

¶66

(v) It is made clear that no opinion is expressed on the merits

¶67

/ demerits of the rival contentions and the same are kept open.

¶68

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶69

Srl.

¶70

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Smt. Anjali S/O Shankar Rao Kottarki and Anr. v. the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. Anjali S/O Shankar Rao Kottarki and Anr. v. the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhaganna and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Shankar Rao S/O Shivalingapp Minajagi Vs Union of India Reptd Its Secretary and Ors.

Mohammad Idris and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Shivleela and Ors. Vs the Secretary and Ors.

Danamma W/O Saibanna Sedamkar Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Hanmantrao and Anr. Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.