Sri Putterappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R1 AT ANNEXURE-J IN INA/CR/16/2019-20 DATED 22/09/2023, CONSEQUENTLY TO DECLARE THAT THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE R1 IS TO BE DISMISSED IN LIMINE.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14363 WP No. 24021 of 2023

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The petitioners have purchased lands

¶31

measuring 4 acres 33.08 guntas in Sy.Nos.235/1 and 2 acres 16.12 guntas in Sy No. 235/3 [these lands are originally Sy.No.235 of Shetty Village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumkur Taluk, and are together referred to as the Subject Properties ]. The subject properties are granted to the private respondents' family members in the proceedings begun in the year 1979-80 and the order of re-grant is dated 19.02.2004. The petitioners have purchased these properties under the Sale Deeds dated 27.09.2006, and they are aggrieved by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 22.09.2023 [ Annexure-J ] under Section 7(A) of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 [for short, ' the KVOA Act '].

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14363 WP No. 24021 of 2023

¶33

Sri. M. Shivaprakash, the learned

¶34

counsel for the petitioners, submits that he would canvass for this Court's interference with the impugned order dated 22.09.2023 on the

¶35

following grounds:

¶36

2.1 The private respondents' family

¶37

members have filed an application for re-grant way back in the year 1979-80 and this application for re-

¶38

grant is considered only on

¶39

19.02.2004

¶40

2.2 The law that would apply will be as

¶41

it stood as of the date of the application and not as of the date of

¶42

the order of re-grant. If the petitioners succeed on this

¶43

proposition, the amended provisions of Section 7A of the KVOA Act would

¶44

not apply,

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14363 WP No. 24021 of 2023

¶46

2.3 Even otherwise, the Deputy

¶47

Commissioner, much before the date of the impugned order, has permitted diversion of the subject properties from agricultural to nonagricultural purposes and if the lands ceased to be agricultural lands, the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner could not have invoked the jurisdiction under the KVOA Act.

¶48

2.4 The petitioners were issued with notice of the proceedings, but they are not served. This is seen from the proceedings with the office of the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner, which is produced as Annexure-H.

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:14363 WP No. 24021 of 2023

¶51

Mr. L. M. Panduranga, the learned counsel for

¶52

the private respondents, and Ms. Vaheeda, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, are heard in the light of these grounds and the records are also perused.

¶53

It is seen that at the first instance, the

¶54

Deputy Commissioner's office has issued notice to the petitioners, and the first and third petitioners are shown served but not the second petitioner and therefore, further notice is issued to the second petitioner. However, the proceedings on the next dates do not show that the second petitioner was indeed duly served. On the petitioners not participating in the proceedings despite the afore, the other petitioners have pleaded bonafides and they assert that in fact neither the first nor the third petitioner is served.

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14363 WP No. 24021 of 2023

¶56

4. This Court, given the consequences

¶57

that would ensue, is of the considered view that the petition must be allowed on the limited ground of lack of due opportunity restoring the proceedings for due consideration as all the other grounds could indeed be considered by the Deputy Commissioner. In the light of the afore, the following:-

¶58

ORDER

¶59