Karnataka High Court
Sri H C Ramachandra Reddy vs The Special Deputy Commissioner on 10 June, 2022
Bench: N S Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO.20396 OF 2021 (KLR RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
SRI. H.C. RAMACHANDRA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, SON OF
CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA, AGRICULTURIST
R/AT NO.40/3, "SUMUKHA NILAYA"
VTB GROUP, HONNENAHALLI VILLAGE
YELAHANKA HOBLI
NOW YELAHANKA TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 064.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU NORTH
SUB-DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVAN
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 009.
2. THE TAHSILDAR, BENGALURU NORTH
[ADDITIONAL] TALUK, YELAHANKA
BENGALURU, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA
YELAHANKA
BENGALURU - 560 064. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.R. SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN DATED:12.01.2021 ON
THE FILE OF THE R-1, QUASH THE ORDER
DATED:12.01.2021 PASSED BY THE R-1 DATED:12.01.2021
AS PER ANNEX-N AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The order passed by the Special Deputy
Commissioner in exercise of power conferred under
Sections 136(3) and 67(2) of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, 1964, is called in question in this writ
petition.
2. By the said order, the Special Deputy
Commissioner has stated Survey No.86 measuring 2
acres 20 guntas, situated at Honnenahalli, Yelahanka
Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk as government lands and
therefore the revenue entries which stood in the name
of the respondents was required to be cancelled.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that in an earlier revision, the erstwhile Deputy
Commissioner had exercised his powers under Section
163 against the vendor of the petitioners and in those
proceedings, the petitioner had impleaded himself and
brought to the notice of the earlier Deputy
Commissioner that in a civil litigation between his
vendor and the State, the Civil Court had held that
there was a genuine grant and had declared the
petitioner's vendor as the owner of the property.
4. He submits that in view of the declaration
by the Civil Court, which is made against the
Government, the Revenue Authorities could not go
beyond this decree. In fact, he submits that this
virtually tantamounts to nullifying the decree and also
the findings recorded in the judgment that there was a
valid grant.
5. The impugned order of the Deputy
Commissioner states that in response to the notice of
the Deputy Commissioner, the respondents had
appeared but had neither filed objections nor had
produced any documents pertaining to the land.
6. Sri. Shankar Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner contends that a perusal of the order sheets
maintained by the Special Deputy Commissioner would
clearly indicate that there was absolutely no sitting
conducted by the Deputy Commissioner from the year
2011 and virtually on every date of hearing, the matter
was adjourned on the ground that the Special Deputy
Commissioner was unavailable and in the year 2020,
when the counsel for the petitioner was absent, the
case has been posted for orders on the ground that no
arguments were advanced.
7. A perusal of the order sheet does indicate
that the matter stood adjourned on almost every
occasion on the ground that the Special Deputy
Commissioner was unavailable and on 19.12.2019
also, the matter was adjourned to 09.01.2020,
because the Deputy Commissioner was unavailable.
8. On 09.01.2020, the order sheet indicates
that the case was called and since the learned counsel
for the respondent was absent and did not address any
arguments, the Deputy Commissioner has proceeded
to post the case for orders.
9. Nearly a year thereafter, the Deputy
Commissioner has pronounced the order dated
12.01.2021.
10. These facts do establish that the petitioner
was not at all heard the matter and sufficient
opportunity had not been afforded to the petitioner.
11. Therefore, I am of the view that the order of
the Deputy Commissioner cannot be sustained and it is
accordingly quashed.
12. The matter is remanded to the Deputy
Commissioner with a direction to the Deputy
Commissioner take into consideration the earlier
proceedings which had been dropped initiated by him
under Section 136(3) and which had been dropped on
the ground that there was a decree in favour of the
petitioner's vendor against the State in which it had
been declared that the petitioner's vendor was a
recipient of grant which was valid and was therefore
entitled to a declaration.
13. Writ petitions are accordingly allowed.
14. Since the parties are represented before
this court, petitioner shall appear before the Deputy
Commissioner on 04.07.2022 to take further
instructions. The Special Deputy Commissioner is
directed to consider the entire matter afresh and pass
an appropriate order in accordance with law within a
period of four months from 04.07.2022.
Sd/-
JUDGE
snc
