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
NC: 2024:KHC:24628
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
NC: 2024:KHC:24628
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
NC: 2024:KHC:24628
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
NC: 2024:KHC:24628
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
NC: 2024:KHC:24628
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:24628
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
