Smt.Lakshmidevamma vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 6073 Kant

                             1


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                        PRESENT

     THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

                            AND

    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

        WRIT APPEAL NO.1188 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA
W/O LATE GUDDA THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS

2. SRI JAYARAM
S/O LATE M G GUDDA THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

BOTH ARE R/AT SY NO.80/P3,
GIDDENAHALLI VILLAGE,
NEAR SAI BABA TEMPLE (METI PALYA)
KADABAGERE POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH-562130

3. SMT. PADMALATHA
W/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA,
D/O LATE M G GUDDA THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

4. SRI VENKATACHALA
S/O LATE M G GUDDA THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
                             2


5. SMT. KALAVATHI
W/O LATE SRINIVAS,
S/O LATE M G GUDDA THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

6. SMT. TRIVENI
W/O M K MAHADEVAIAH,
S/O LATE M G GUDDA THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

7. SMT. SATHYABHAMA S G
W/O RAJANNA,
S/O LATE M G GUDDA THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

8. SRI S G MOHANKUMAR
S/O LATE M G GUDDA THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

APPELLANT NO.3 TO 8 ALL ARE
R/AT NO.159, SRI LAKSHMI
3RD MAIN, 5TH CROSS,
RHBCS LAYOUT, ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560091

                                          ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI.PRASANNA B R, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING, DR BR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001

2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-I
BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION,
                              3


OFFICE OF DISTRICT COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
K G ROAD, BENGALURU-560009

3. THE TAHSILDAR
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-560001

4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-560001.

                                             ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT PRAYING TO 1.TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 06.09.2021 IN W.P. NO. 14202/2021 (KLR) PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT AND TO ALLOW
THE WRIT PETITION PRAYED FOR AND 2. TO GRANT SUCH OTHER
AND FURTHER RELIEF WHICH DEEMED FIT UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS
DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                       JUDGMENT

Heard.

2. This intra Court appeal has been filed challenging

the order dated 06.09.2021 passed in W.P.No.14202/2021.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners

submits that the appellant No.1 acquired land measuring to an

extent of 7 acres and her husband and father of other

appellants had acquired 3 acres in subject Sy.No.80, present

Sy.No.80/P15 situated at Giddenahalli Village, Dasanapura

Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk under two registered sale deeds

dated 07.05.1987 and 15.05.1987 and their names were

mutated as per MR.No.1/87-88 and MR.No.2/87-88. The land

measuring 50 acres including the above said land were

allotted to Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike for the

purpose of burial ground as per the orders dated 19.01.2000

and 01.02.2000 which was challenged before the High Court in

W.P.Nos.5149-5150/2001, wherein the said allotment was set

aside in respect of the land owned by the appellants. It was

thereafter that the Special Deputy Commissioner initiated

proceedings by invoking Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land

Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act') in case

No.RRT(2)(N)/CR-35/2001-02 in respect of the land in

question and by passing the order dated 23.07.2007, ordered

to cancel the revenue entry made in the name of the

appellants and to resume the land to the Government. The

said order was challenged by the appellants before the High

Court by filing W.P.No.30895/2010, wherein the order of the

Special Deputy Commissioner dated 23.07.2007 was set aside.

4. It is contended that inspite of the fact that the

Special Deputy Commissioner's order dated 15.09.2020 was

set aside by this Court, the Special Deputy Commissioner has

initiated proceedings against the appellants in respect of the

very same subject survey number by invoking Section 67(2)

of the Act. It is further contended that the Special Tahsildar

has denied to transfer the revenue entry in favour of the

appellants/petitioners. It was thereafter that the appellants

again preferred writ petition before the High Court wherein the

learned Single Judge has passed the order dated 06.09.2021

disposing of the writ petition at the stage of preliminary

hearing on the ground that the earlier proceedings were on

account of certain disputes between the persons claiming

occupancy rights and the Deputy Commissioner exercised

jurisdiction to correct the revenue records. It is contended by

learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Single

Judge failed to appreciate that earlier, proceedings were also

initiated at the instance of the authorities and an order to

resume the land to the Government was passed.

5. We have considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the

records.

6. The learned Single Judge has taken a view that the

order dated 15.09.2020 shall be treated as a show cause

notice permitting the petitioners to submit such

representations and documents as they may deem fit. It is

provided by the learned Single Judge that the respondents

shall also provide the appellants/petitioners with an

opportunity of being heard before passing necessary orders.

7. We are of the considered view that there is no

wrong in the view taken by the learned Single Judge and

opportunity has been given to the appellants/petitioners to

submit their reply to the notice dated 15.09.2020 and also

submit all the documents which they may want to rely in their

favour. The learned Single Judge has also observed that the

appellants/petitioners shall be given an opportunity of being

heard before passing any final order. The

appellants/petitioners cannot be prejudiced by the said

observation of the learned Single Judge. As such, we do not

find any reason to grant indulgence.

8. The writ appeal is disposed of. However, we make

it clear that the observations made by the learned Single

Judge while deciding the writ petition preferred by the

appellants/petitioners shall not influence the authorities while

considering the representations (reply) to the show cause

notice dated 15.09.2020 and the authorities concerned shall

take an independent view taking into consideration the

representations preferred by the appellants/petitioners and

the documents submitted in their support. The necessary

orders may be passed in accordance with law expeditiously

say within a period of three months from the date of

reply/representation is submitted by the appellants/

petitioners.

The pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand

disposed of.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

CA