Disposed

Smt Jayamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2024WP/25039/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a revenue record transfer order passed against her deceased husband after his death; she learnt of it only when seeking KIADB acquisition compensation. The court held the order passed against a dead person without hearing the successor could not stand and set it aside, remanding for fresh consideration with notice to the petitioner.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt Jayamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:46381 WP No. 25039 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 25039 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. JAYAMMA, W/O LATE MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT NO. B K PALYA, JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU- 562 149.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. NAGESH S., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by CHAITHANYA K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶13

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DISTRICT, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

THE TAHSILAR, YELAHANKA TALUK, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560 064.

¶15

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶16

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:46381 WP No. 25039 of 2024

¶18

EXECUTIVE MEMBER, KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶19

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.39, BHARATH SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING, 4^TH FLOOR, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. B.P.RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5)

¶22

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN REVENUE RECORD TRANSFER PROCEEDING BEARING CASE NO.RRT/2/NA/CR/963/09-10 DATED 16.08.2010 PASSED UNDER SECTION 136(3) OF THE LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.7/P34 MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 4 ACRE IS SITUATED AT B.K.PALYA, JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE DIST, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNX-A AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:46381 WP No. 25039 of 2024

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner in the instant writ petition has challenged the impugned order dated 16.08.2010 passed by respondent No.2 in exercise of its power under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act').

¶28

The case of the petitioner is that she is the wife of

¶29

one late Mariyappa, who was the owner of the property which is the subject matter of the writ petition. It is submitted that late Mariyappa died on 26.12.2004. It is submitted that proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Act came to be initiated against the said Mariyappa in the year 2009-10 after his demise. The petitioner was not aware of the said proceedings and the impugned order has been passed against the dead person. It is further submitted that the property in question has been subsequently acquired for the purposes of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (for short 'KIADB') by the State Government and only when she approached the

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:46381 WP No. 25039 of 2024

¶32

KIADB for release of compensation, she realized about the impugned order and immediately thereafter, she approached this Court.

¶33

Learned AGA upon instruction submits that the grant claimed by the petitioner is not genuine and the same is forged and fabricated and she justifies the impugned order on the said ground. However, she is not in a position to dispute the death of late Mariyappa on 26.12.2004. The petitioner has produced the death certificate of late Mariyappa vide Annexure-G to the writ petition.

¶34

For the reason that the impugned order has been passed against a dead person and the petitioner who claims to have succeeded to the estate of her late husband, was not a party to the proceedings and could not defend the case, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and remanded back to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration. Hence, the following:

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:46381 WP No. 25039 of 2024

¶37

ORDER

¶38

i) The impugned order dated 16.08.2010 passed bearing No.RRT/2/NA/CR/963/09-10 by respondent No.2 is hereby set aside;

¶39

ii) The matter is remanded back to respondent No.2 to hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereafter;

¶40

iii) Petitioner shall appear before respondent No.2 without any further notice on 12.12.2024 at 3.00 p.m.;

¶41

iv) Respondent No.5 is also permitted to participate in the proceedings before respondent No.2;

¶42

v) Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of .

¶43

SD/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶44

PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Smt Jayamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt Jayamma v. the State of Karnataka

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

Atm Retail Vs Union of India

Karnataka Bank Limited Vs Additional /Joint/Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax / Income Tax Officer

M/S Albatross Builders and Developers LLP Vs Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax

Smt. Sundramma Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri.R.Rangaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Biligamma, Vs the State of Karnataka