1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
WRIT APPEAL NO.1579/2014 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
SMT.ANJANADEVI
W/O LATE V.RANGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.131, 15TH CROSS
11TH BLOCK, R.T.NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 032
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANKET S., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.IRFANA NAZEER, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DISTRICT
BANGALORE-560 001
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION
BANGALORE-560 001
2
3. THE TAHSILDAR
ANEKAL TALUK
ANEKAL-560179
4. SMT.CHINNAMMA
W/O LATE CHIKKA CHOWDANA BOYI
VADDARAPALYA
ATTIBELE HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK-560179
5. SRI.T.SUDHAKAR
S/O.SANJEEVARAYUDU
NERALUR VILLAGE
ATTIBELE HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK-560 179
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.JEEVAN J.NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3
SRI.PRAKASH T.HEBBAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4
R-5 SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION
38129/2009 DATED: 03/06/2014 AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:-
3
JUDGMENT
Mr.Sanket S., learned counsel for the appellant. Mr.Jeevan J. Neeralgi, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents-1 to 3.
Mr.Prakash T. Hebbar, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
2. In this intra Court appeal preferred under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, the appellant has assailed the validity of the order dated 03.06.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge.
3. In order to appreciate the challenge of the appellant to the impugned order, few facts need to be mentioned.
4. Land bearing Sy.No.57 was granted in favour of the fourth respondent's husband. After the death of her husband, along with her sons she sold the said 4 property in favour of respondent No.5 after obtaining permission of sale from the Government of Karnataka. The appellant purchased the land in question from respondent No.5 by a registered sale deed dated 23.12.2004 and her name was entered in the Katha. Respondent No.4 initiated proceeding before the first appellate Court under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe(Prohibition of Tranfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978.
5. In the aforesaid proceeding, the appellant was impleaded as a party. However, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, respondent No.4 preferred an appeal in which the appellant was not impleaded as a party. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner namely first appellate Court, the appellant filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 5 03.06.2014 has dismissed the writ petition. In this factual background, this intra Court appeal has been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised similar contention that the learned Single Judge ought not to have appreciated that in the proceedings before the first appellate Court namely, the Deputy Commissioner, the appellant was not impleaded as a party and therefore the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is in violation of the principles of natural justice.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents have supported the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. However, they fairly concede the fact that the appellant was not impleaded in the proceeding before the Deputy Commissioner. 6
8. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and perused the record.
9. From perusal of the record, it is evident that even though the appellant was a party in the proceeding before the Assistant Commissioner, yet she was not impleaded as a party in the proceeding before the Deputy Commissioner and the order has been passed behind her back. In other words, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is in violation of principles of natural justice. However, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge.
10. In the result, the order dated 03.07.2009 passed by the Deputy Commissioner as well as the order dated 03.06.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge are hereby set aside and respondent No.4 is directed to implead the appellant as a party in the proceeding, which is pending before the Deputy 7 Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties, is directed to decide the appeal expeditiously, in accordance with law.
11. The parties undertake to appear before the Deputy Commissioner along with the copy of this order on 08.02.2021.
With the above observation and direction, the writ appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE TL