Karnataka High Court
Smt Radhamma vs The Special Deputy Commissioner on 28 November, 2012
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
WRIT PETITION No.40572/2010 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
Smt.Radhamma,
W/o Late Shamanna,
Aged about 70 years,
R/at Thimmasandra Village,
Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. ...Petitioner
(By Sri K.Shivashankar, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Special Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore Urban District,
K.G.Road, Bangalore.
2. The Thasildar,
Bangalore North Additional Taluk,
Yalahanka, Bangalore. ... Respondents
(By Sri R.B.Sathyanarayana Singh, HCGP)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to call for the records from the
office of the R1 and etc.
This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B'
group this day, the Court made the following:
2
ORDER
The petitioner has raised the challenge to the order, dated 25.2.2010 (Annexure-A) passed by the first respondent Special Deputy Commissioner holding that there is no grant of the land in question measuring 2 acres standing at Survey No.19/P2 of Thimmasandra Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and consequently directing the deletion of the petitioner's name from the records and for showing them as Government lands.
2. Sri K.Shivashankar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land measuring 5 acres at Survey No.19 was granted to one Sri H.S.Shama Rao in 1938-1939. The petitioner purchased 1 acre from the said grantee in 1961. He submits that the 3 cases - RRT.CR.40/2008-09, RRT.CR.40B/2008-09 and RRT.CR.40C/2008-09 were being called together. The same learned advocate appeared for the respondents in all the three cases. He filed the common objections and the documents supporting thereof. No orders whatsoever are passed in case No.RRT.CR.40B/2008-09 and RRT.CR.40C/2008-09. On the other hand, the Special Deputy Commissioner has proceeded with the erroneous understanding 3 that the petitioner's learned advocate did not turn up and that he has not filed the objections in the first case. The learned counsel submits that the paragraph No.6 of the memorandum of the writ petition contains the necessary averments in this regard.
3. Sri R.B.Sathyanarayana Singh, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the impugned order appears to have been passed as the petitioner and her learned advocate were absent and as they have not filed any reply or supporting documents.
4. What is involved is the party's precious right in the immovable property. I am therefore inclined to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to produce all the documents in support of the claim of the land grant. I do not propose to go into the issue of whether there was any confusion on account of three cases - RRT.CR.40/2008-09, RRT.CR.40B/2008-09 and RRT.CR.40C/2008-09 being called together and RRT.CR.40B/2008-09 and RRT.CR.40C/2008-09 being delinked from RRT.CR.40/2008-09. That apart, it is not in dispute that the subject matter of RRT.CR.40B/2008-09 and 4 RRT.CR.40C/2008-09 are also portions of the land standing at the same survey number. The parties in the said cases also claim that they have purchased the property from the same original grantee, namely, Sri H.S.Shama Rao. It is not known why the Special Deputy Commissioner has not passed the order in RRT.CR.40B/2008-09 and RRT.CR.40C/2008-09. If he were to pass the order in RRT.CR.40B/2008-09 and RRT.CR.40C/2008-09 holding that Sri H.S.Shama Rao was indeed granted 5 acres of land, this same order has to hold good for the present petitioner too.
5. Under these circumstances, I quash the impugned order. The first respondent Special Deputy Commissioner is directed to hold fresh enquiry and thereafter take a decision in the matter. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Special Deputy Commissioner on 11.12.2012 and produce all the necessary documents in support of her claims on the said day without waiting for any notice from the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 shall dispose of the remanded matter within an outer limit of four months from 11.12.2012. 5
6. This petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE MD