Karnataka High Court
Sri. C. Y. Shivegowda vs State Of Karnataka on 2 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:24628
WP No. 25807 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.25807 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. C. Y. SHIVEGOWDA
SON OF LATE VYEKUNTEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT USA RESIDENCY,
NO.38, JCST M BLOCK,
ADICHUNCHANAGIRI MAIN ROAD,
KUVEMPUNAGARA,
CHAMARAJA MOHALLA,
MYSURU-570 023.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MADHUKAR M DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
ARUNKUMAR M S
Location: High REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
Court of Karnataka M.S. BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSURU DISTRICT,
MYSURU-570 005.
3. SMT. USHA PATEL
WIFE OF DR. V. ARAVINDAPPA,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:24628
WP No. 25807 of 2023
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 1579,
PUNYA NILAYA, 4TH MAIN ROAD,
2ND STAGE, HEBBAL,
MYSURU-570 016.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA FPR R1 AND R2;
SRI. C.R. GOPALASWAMY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. BHARGAV G., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE INQUIRY NOTICE BEARING NO.
ALN3/MISCE/35/2022-23 DATED 25.08.2023 ISSUED BY THE
R-2 (ANNX-A) AND QUASHING THE PROCEEDINGS IN CASE
ALN(3)/35/2022-23 PENDING BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.2
(ANNX-B).
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the enquiry notice dated 25.08.2023 issued by respondent No.2 (Annexure- A) inter alia sought for quashing the entire proceedings before respondent No.2 as per Annexure-B to the writ petition.
2. Relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition are that the petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of the -3- NC: 2024:KHC:24628 WP No. 25807 of 2023 land in question having purchased the same as per registered Sale Deed mentioned at para 2 of the writ petition. It is also stated by the petitioner that the vendor of the petitioner has initiated proceedings under the provisions of the PTCL Act and the said petition was allowed by the competent authority.
3. It is also stated in the Writ Petition that the petitioner has sold a portion of the land in question through registered Sale Deed dated 06.03.2010 as per Annexure-D to the writ petition. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.02.2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Mysore Sub-Division in PTCL proceedings and the said appeal came to be dismissed by respondent No.2.
4. It is stated that feeling aggrieved by the same, petitioner sought to challenge the Order passed by the respondents - Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner before this Court in W.P. No.30459/2015 and the said petition was disposed of on 22.07.2021 allowing the prayer made by the petitioner. An appeal having been preferred against the said Order of this Court dated 22.07.2021, before the Division -4- NC: 2024:KHC:24628 WP No. 25807 of 2023 Bench of this Court in W.A. No.1017/2021, same came to be confirmed by the Judgment dated 02.03.2022.
5. It is also stated in the petition that the land in question has been converted as per order dated 27.04.2022 (Annexure- N). Being aggrieved by the said order, the contesting respondent No.3 submitted a representation to cancel conversion order. Based on such representation, respondent No.2 initiated proceedings against the petitioner, for cancellation of the conversion order passed by the revenue authority. Hence this writ petition is filed.
6. Heard Sri. Madhukar M. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Harisha A.S., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Sri. C.R. Gopalaswamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Bhargav G., learned counsel for respondent No.3.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in W.P. No.45634/2013 disposed of on 14.11.2013, argued that the Deputy Commissioner, having passed the order of conversion under -5- NC: 2024:KHC:24628 WP No. 25807 of 2023 Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 has become functus officio in so far as to recall/ review of the order passed by the said authority and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.
8. Learned Senior Counsel argued on behalf of respondent No.3 and vehemently contended that the contesting respondent No.3 has not been heard in the matter for granting conversion in respect of the land in question and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute with regard to the fact that the respondent No.2, a quasi judicial authority has passed conversion order under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (Annexure-N). It is relevant to cite the dictum of this Court in the case of "Smt. Rathna Vs. Deputy Commissioner and another" in W.P. No. 45634/2013 disposed of on 14.11.2013, wherein this Court at para 6 of the Order has observed as follows:
"6. That apart, the Act provides for appeal to be filed, from an original order passed by the Deputy -6- NC: 2024:KHC:24628 WP No. 25807 of 2023 Commissioner to the tribunal as per Section 49 of the Act. The second respondent ought to have availed that remedy. Nowhere in the Act is there a provision for cancellation of an order of conversion. The decision relied upon by the counsel for respondent No.2 in the case of Lakshman V/s. State of Karnataka (ILR 1995 Kar. 1871) is not applicable to the present case as that decision arises under Section 24 of the Act where the Revenue Officers constitute a Revenue Court and Section 25 specifically provides for inherent powers of a Revenue Court. But in the instant case, the administrative power of the Deputy Commissioner is exercised under Section 95 of the Act. Once the order is passed under that Section, the authority becomes functus officio. There can be no review of an administrative action unless specifically provided in the statute. This is unlike the case of exercise of a quasi judicial or judicial powers, wherein the power of review may be provided under the statute explicitly or could be read as part of the inherent powers of such an authority. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner would not have passed the impugned order cancelling the order of conversion granted on 08/08/2011. On this ground also, the impugned order is quashed."
10. Having taken note of the Orders passed by this Court in the above Writ Petitions as well as the Order on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of -7- NC: 2024:KHC:24628 WP No. 25807 of 2023 the view that, the Deputy Commissioner while exercising the quasi judicial power under Section 95 of the Act had become functus officio in so far as review of the said order is concerned. In that view of the matter, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The enquiry notice as per Annexure-A and the proceedings in ALN(3)/35/2022-23 as per Annexure-B and any further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-B are hereby quashed.
11. However, taking into consideration the grievance urged by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent, liberty is reserved to the contesting respondent No.3 to avail such remedy as available under law by approaching the competent authority.
12. In order to facilitate the said aspect, the contesting respondent No.3 is granted four weeks' time to approach the competent authority. Till then, the respondent - authorities shall not precipitate the matter.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:24628 WP No. 25807 of 2023
13. Parties shall maintain status-quo in respect of the land in question. Needless to say that maintaining status-quo in respect of the land in question by the petitioner will not come in the way of the proceedings before the Trial Court in O.S.No.1228/2023, pending consideration before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Mysuru.
SD/-
JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13