Allowed

Smt. Mohini Rai v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2024WP/9677/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a Deputy Commissioner order extinguishing Kumki privileges. Court quashed the order and remanded the matter for proceedings after providing the petitioners a fair opportunity to produce relevant documents to substantiate their land rights, without deciding merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order quashed; matter remanded to respondent for fair hearing; parties directed to appear before respondent.

Smt. Mohini Rai Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:20420 WP NO.9677 OF 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.9677 OF 2015 (KLR-REG)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. MOHINI RAI W/O LATE SADASHIVA RAI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT PARIALAGUTTU HOUSE, AMBLAMOGERU VILLAGE AND POST, MANGALURU TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 575 017.

¶9

SMT. INDIRA BHANDRAY D/O LATE HARINAKSHI SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT PARIALAGUTTU HOUSE, AMBLAMOGERU VILLAGE AND POST, MANGALURU TALUK,

¶10

DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 575 017.

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SMT. MALLIKA ADAPPA W/O BALAKRISHNA ADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT PARIALAGUTTU HOUSE, AMBLAMOGERU VILLAGE AND POST, MANGALURU TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 575 017.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:20420 WP NO.9677 OF 2015

¶18

M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶19

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 575 001.

¶20

THE TAHSILDAR MANGALURU TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, MANGALURU - 575 001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDR ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03^RD FEBRUARY, 2015 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

In this writ petition, petitioners are assailing order dated 03^rd February, 2015 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner.

¶27

The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ

¶28

petition are that the petitioners claim to be the owners in possession of certain Kadim Warga lands situate at

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:20420 WP NO.9677 OF 2015

¶30

Amblamogru Village, Mangaluru Taluk. In this regard, petitioners have produced RTC extracts and a sketch to establish that the land in question is a warga land belonging to the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent No.2 had initiated proceedings against the husband of petitioner No.1 and others to extinguish the Kumki privilege of the petitioners as per Annexure-D and by order dated 02^nd July, 1996, rejected the claim made by the husband of the petitioner No.1 and others. Being aggrieved by the same, husband of

¶31

the petitioner No.1 has filed appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in Appeal No.380 of 1996 and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, by order dated 30^th September, 1997 (Annexure-E), allowed the appeal and set-side the order passed by the respondent No.2. It is the grievance of petitioners that despite the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru the respondent No.2 has initiated proceedings as per the impugned order produced at Annexure-A and set-aside the

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:20420 WP NO.9677 OF 2015

¶34

Kumki privileges given to the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners have presented this writ petition.

¶35

Heard Sri. Pundikai Ishwara Bhat, learned

¶36

counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri. Harisha A.S., learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶37

Sri. Pundikai Ishwara Bhat, learned counsel

¶38

appearing for the petitioners submits that the land in question is a Kumki land and the said privilege is confirmed by Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in appeal No.380 of 1996 and therefore without giving fair opportunity to the petitioners, the impugned order has been made and as such, he sought for interference of this Court. He also refers to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme

¶39

Court in the case of STATE OF MYSORE AND OTHERS

¶40

vs. K. CHANDRASEKHARA ADIGA AND ANOTHER

¶41

reported in AIR 1976 SC 853 and contended that the respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order.

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:20420 WP NO.9677 OF 2015

¶43

Per contra, Sri. Harisha A.S., learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents sought to justify the impugned order dated 03^rd February, 2015 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.2 and contended that the petitioners have not filed objections in the said proceedings. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶44

In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on perusal of the impugned order dated 03^rd February, 2015 (AnnexureA) passed by the respondent No.2 would indicate that the petitioners herein have entered appearance, however not contested the matter on merits by filing a necessary documents. In that view of the matter, in order to provide fair opportunity to the petitioners to enable them to produce the relevant documents, if any to substantiate their right in respect of land in question, the writ petition is liable to be allowed. It is made clear that this Court has

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:20420 WP NO.9677 OF 2015

¶47

not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶48

O R D E R

¶49

1. Writ Petition allowed ;

¶50

1. Order dated 03^rd February, 2015 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner is set-aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent No.2 to take decision in the matter after providing fair opportunity to the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law;

¶51

1. In order to expedite the matter before the respondent No.2, as the parties are represented by their learned counsels, parties are directed to appear before the respondent No.2 on 01^st July, 2024 at 03.00 p.m. and on thier appearance, the respondent No.2 shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law at the earliest.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

ARK

Smt. Mohini Rai v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mohini Rai 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

Zilla Harijana Shishitha Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr P Padmavathi Rao Vs the Tahsildar

K a Krishnamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Puttamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Muniyamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramesh B G Vs the State of Karnataka