Karnataka High Court
M G Suresh vs State Of Karnataka on 13 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:45386
WP No. 11263 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO. 11263 OF 2021 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
M G SURESH
S/O LATE M G MAHESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
MALLAPURA HARANAHALLI HOBLI
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK-577 201
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P N HARISH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
Digitally signed REVENUE DEPARTMENT
by SUNITHA M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001
GANGARAJU
Location: High 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
Court of SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
Karnataka
SHIVAMOGGA-577201
3. The ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
SHIVAMOGGA SUB DIVISION
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577201
4. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O KRISHNAPPA
5. KAVYA
D/O KRISHNAPPA
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:45386
WP No. 11263 of 2021
6. SAROJAMMA
W/O KRISHNAPPA
RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6 ARE
RESIDENT OF MALLAPURA GRAMA
MYDOLALU
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK-577 201
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
7. SIDDAPPA
S/O GURUVANNA
MALLAPURA, MYDOLALU
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK-577 201
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHIDAMBARA G.S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R6
SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3
SRI. NANDEESH C.B., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K. CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDERS DTD. 14.11.2019 PASSED BY R-2 IN
SC/ST NO.7/2018 PRODUCED AS PER ANNX-G AND THE ORDER
OF THE R-3 DTD. 22.09.2017 PASSED IN PTCL NO.12/2015-16
PRODUCED AS PER ANNX-E TO THE PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the
order passed by the second respondent dated 14.11.2019
vide Annexure-G and the order of the respondent No.3
dated 22.09.2017 vide Annexure-E.
NC: 2023:KHC:45386
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are
as under:
The father of the petitioner purchased the land in
question under registered sale deed dated 11.03.1970
from one Siddappa and the said sale was questioned by
grantee of the land by filing the application under Section
5 of PTCL Act before the respondent No.3. The
respondent No.3 vide order dated 16.09.1980, held that
the sale is null and void, but however did not ordered for
restoration of the land in favour of grantee. The order of
Assistant Commissioner has reached finality. Since
Siddappa did not challenged the same, father of the
petitioner filed an appeal against the order passed by the
respondent No.3 before the respondent No.2. The
respondent No.2 dismissed the appeal filed by the father
of the petitioner and confirmed the order passed by the
Assistant Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner
dismissed the appeal filed by the father of the petitioner
vide order dated 06.04.1992. Father of the petitioner died
on 08.07.2007. The notice came to be issued by the
NC: 2023:KHC:45386
Assistant Commissioner on 22.04.2016, to the father of
the petitioner and thereafter an order was came to be
passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated
22.09.2017. The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed
by the Assistant Commissioner preferred the appeal before
the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 dismissed the
appeal. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
notice was issued to the father of the petitioner on
22.04.2016 , by the time notice was issued, father of the
petitioner was no more and he submits that the
proceedings initiated by the respondent No.3 is against a
dead person. Further, he submits that the order passed
by the respondent No.3 is void and the respondent no.2
without considering the said aspect has proceeded to
affirm the order passed by the respondent No.3. Hence, he
NC: 2023:KHC:45386
submits that the orders passed by the respondent Nos.2
and 3 be set aside and the writ petition be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent
Nos.4 to 6 fairly concede the order as against the dead
person. Hence, he submits that writ petition be disposed of
and remit the matter to the Assistant Commissioner to
dispose of the proceedings in accordance with law.
6. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Admittedly, Siddappa filed an application under
Section 5 of PTCL Act in the year 1979-80 before the
respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 vide order dated
16.09.1980 allowed the application and declared the
registered sale deed as null and void and declined to
restore the land in favour of the applicant. The father of
the petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the
Assistant Commissioner preferred the appeal before the
Deputy Commissioner. Deputy Commissioner dismissed
NC: 2023:KHC:45386
the appeal filed by the father of the petitioner. Thereafter,
father of the petitioner died on 08.07.2007. Neither
grantee nor the respondent Nos.4 to 6 have initiated any
proceedings or taken any steps to execute the order
passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 16.09.1980.
Again Assistant Commissioner issued notice dated
22.04.2016 to the father of the petitioner, by the time
notice was issued, the father of the petitioner was no more
on 08.07.2007. The respondent No.3 initiated the
proceedings against the father of the petitioner and passed
the order. The order passed by the respondent No.3 is
against the dead person. The order passed by the
Assistant Commissioner is against a dead person. Hence,
the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is nullify.
Further, Deputy Commissioner without examining the said
aspect has dismissed the appeal confirming the order
passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The order passed
by the Assistant Commissioner is against the dead person.
Hence, on these grounds impugned orders are liable to be
set aside.
NC: 2023:KHC:45386
8. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is allowed.
The impugned orders dated 14.11.2019
and 22.09.2017 vide Annexures-G and E are
set aside.
The matter is remitted to the Assistant
Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner is
directed to implead legal representatives of the
petitioner herein in the said proceedings and
thereafter Assistant Commissioner is directed to
hear the parties and pass judgment in
accordance with law.
Parties are directed to appear before the
Assistant Commissioner on 10.01.2024.
SD/-
JUDGE
SKS
