Allowed

Sri R S Chandrashekar, v. Tahsildar

Karnataka HC21 Mar 2024WP/7323/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a Tahsildar's land re-grant order; their appeal was dismissed by the District Judge as not maintainable for not approaching the Deputy Commissioner first. The High Court held the Tahsildar exercised Deputy Commissioner's powers under a 1979 notification and the appeal lay to the District Court under Section 3(2), quashing the dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 15.02.2024 in M.A.No.5008/2024 quashed; appeal remitted to the District Judge for reconsideration on merits.

Sri R S Chandrashekar, Vs Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:11727 WP No. 7323 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 7323 OF 2024 (KVOA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. R.S.CHANDRASHEKAR, S/O LATE SRI. B.SIDDAIAH AND LATE SMT. GOWRAMMA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶9

SRI. J.S.LINGARADHYA, S/O LATE SRI. B.SIDDAIAH AND LATE SMT.GOWRAMMA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶10

PETITIONER NOS.1(a) & 1(b) BOTH ARE R/AT RAJAPURA, HENNAGARA POST, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 105.

¶11

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT. SUVARNA S, D/O LATE SRI. B. SIDDAIAH AND LATE SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O D.G.RAJASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, DOMMASANDRA POST, SARJAPURA VIA ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 158.

¶13

SMT. AMBIKA S @ RUDRAMBIKA S, D/O LATE SRI. B. SIDDAIAH AND LATE SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O SRI. RENUKARADHYA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, MANTAPPA VILLAGE, BANNERUGHATTA POST, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK - 560 083.

¶14

SMT. S. VIJAYAMMA, D/O LATE SRI. B. SIDDAIAH AND

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:11727 WP No. 7323 of 2024

¶16

LATE SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, CURRENTLY R/AT JAKKASANDRA, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, JANATHA COLONY, JAKKASANDRA, MASTER ROAD, KORMANGALA POST, BENGALURU – 560 034.

¶17

SMT. S. SHASHIKALA @ S. SAROJA, D/O LATE SRI. B. SIDDAIAH AND LATE SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O SRI. RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, CURRENTLY R/A JAKKASANDRA, CHANDAN FANCY STORE, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, JANATHA COLONY, MASTER ROAD, OPPOSITE KATERANNA TEMPLE, KORAMANGALA POST, BENGALURU – 560 034.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SMT. ANUSHA NANDISH., ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

TAHSILDAR, TASILDAR OFFICE, ANEKAL, VINAYAKA NAGAR, ANEKAL – 562 106.

¶22

SMT. R. GAYATHRI RAJAPUR, D/O R. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, R/A VAGDEVI, NO.995, 8^TH MAIN, GIRINAGAR II PHASE, BENGALURU – 560 085.

¶23

SRI. R. BHAGWAN, S/O R. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, R/A NO.350/2, 9^TH MAIN ROAD, VIDYAPEETA LAYOUT, BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 085.

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11727 WP No. 7323 of 2024

¶25

SRI. R. SANTHAN, S/O R. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, R/A NO.597, "KRISHNA BLOSSOM", 7^TH MAIN, 11^TH CROSS, J.P. NAGAR III STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 078.

¶26

SMT. R. PRAKURTHI, D/O R. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/A NO.392/41, 19^TH MAIN, 1^ST BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 010.

¶27

SMT. BHARATHI, D/O R.KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT NO.1138, ARUNODAYA, GIRINAGAR II PHASE, BENGALURU – 560 085.

¶28

SRI. SHRIDHAR RAJAPUR, S/O R. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/A NO.7, KRISHNA PADMA KRUPA, SOMESHWARA LAYOUT, HULIMAVU, BEGUR MAIN ROAD, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 076.

¶29

SMT. GIRIJA, D/O R. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/A NO.20, 2^ND CROSS, PAVANAMA NAGAR, J.P.NAGAR, 8^TH PHASE, KOTHANUR DINNE MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 076.

¶30

SMT. R. SANDHYA, D/O R. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/A 1371/B, SREEKRISHNA, 8^TH MAIN, GIRINAGAR II PHASE, BENGALURU – 560 085.

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:11727 WP No. 7323 of 2024

¶32

SRI. NAGARAJAN, S/O SRINIVASMURTHY, AGED MAJOR, R/A NO.1187, 8^TH CROSS, ASHOKANAGAR, BANASHANKARI 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 050.

¶33

SRI. R.S.RAJAGOPALAN, S/O SRINIVASMURTHY, AGED MAJOR, R/AT NO.1187, 8^TH CROSS, ASHOKANAGAR, BANASHANKARI 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 050.

¶34

SRI. R.S. RAMAKRISHNA, S/O SRINIVASMURTHY, AGED MAJOR, R/A NO.1187, 8^TH CROSS, ASHOKANAGAR, BANASHANKARI 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 050.

¶35

…RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI. KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 TO R12 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 11.03.2024)

¶37

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15/02/2024 IN MA NO.5008/2024 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL, ANEKAL (ANNEXURE - A) AND ETC.,

¶38

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

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The 1^st Respondent, in exercise of the power under Section 5 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, (in short 'the Act, 1961') re-granted the land bearing Survey No.193 measuring 22 guntas of Rajapura village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District, in favour of the original family members of the Barvardar. The petitioner asserts that the entire extent of land re-granted was purchased under a

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:11727 WP No. 7323 of 2024

¶42

registered Sale Deed dated 22.09.1965. The petitioner's grievance is that they are the purchasers of the said land. However, they were not made parties before the 1^st respondent, and the Order re-granting the land in favour of the original members of the Barvardar is in violation of principles of natural justice, since the re-grant order enures to the benefit of the petitioners by applying the doctrine of feeding grant by estoppel as held by the Full Bench of this Court in SYED BASHEER AHAMED AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in (1994) 1 KANT LJ 385 .

¶43

Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed an appeal under Section 3(2) of the Act, 1961. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal stating that the appeal filed without approaching the Deputy Commissioner concerned for redressal of their grievance is not maintainable. Hence, this petition.

¶44

Sri. M.R.Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners would submit that the Tahsildar concerned is vested with the power to consider the application for re-grant under Section 5 of the Act, 1961 in light of the notification issued by the State Government. Against an order passed under Section 5 of the Act, an efficacious remedy of appeal is provided under Section 3(2) of the Act to the jurisdictional District Court. Therefore, the learned District Judge has committed an error in not exercising the jurisdiction vested in him

¶45

Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State submits that the Order impugned before the learned District Judge was passed by the Tahsildar and the appeal filed without approaching the Deputy Commissioner concerned was not maintainable. Therefore, the learned District Judge has rightly passed the impugned order.

¶46

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:11727 WP No. 7323 of 2024

¶47

Considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

¶48

The petitioner has placed on record the notification dated August, 1979 bearing No.RD.15.MVS.79 issued in exercise of the power conferred by clause(d) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 2 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, by which, the Tahsildar of the Taluks are appointed to perform the functions and exercise the powers of the Deputy Commissioners under the said Act in respect of the areas within their jurisdiction. In light of the notification, the Tahsildar regranted the subject land in favour of the original family members of the Barvardar.

¶49

The 1^st respondent confined the regrant of land to an extent of 16 guntas stating that the petitioners have purchased 22 guntas in Sy.No.193. Whether the order passed by the 1^st respondent is in conformity with Section 5 of the Act is the matter which requires adjudication by the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge instead of adjudicating the appeal on merits, dismissed the appeal stating that the appeal is not maintainable .Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge is contrary to Section 3(2) of the Act and the learned District Judge has committed an error in not exercising the power vested in him under Section 3(2) of the Act. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i. Writ petition is allowed.

¶52

ii. The impugned order dated 15.02.2024 passed by the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural, Anekal in M.A.No.5008/2024 is hereby quashed, and

¶53

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:11727 WP No. 7323 of 2024

¶54

the matter is remitted to learned District judge to reconsider the appeal in M.A.No.5008/2024 in accordance with law.

¶55

All contentions are kept open.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

BNV/RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Sri R S Chandrashekar, v. Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri R S Chandrashekar, v. Tahsildar

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

Sharada Auto Union (Regd) Vs State of Karnataka

Sri T Pavan Kumar, Vs Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Limited (Bescom)

Srinivasamurthy. P. C. Vs State of Karnataka

Smt C a Shantha Vs Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Ltd.

M/S. Siddhi Enterprises Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Rajappa Vs the Tahasildar