Smt Anjanadevi vs The Deputy Commissioner
2021 Latest Caselaw 620 Kant

                          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

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

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.

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

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