Karnataka High Court
Sri B K Ramaprasad vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 July, 2013
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S. Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.29092/2011 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI B.K.RAMAPRASAD,
S/O.LATE A.KRISHNAMURTHY RAO,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 60, BELLANDUR VILLAGE,
BELLANDUR POST, VARTHUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE-560 037.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI GANAPATHI BHAT, ADV. FOR KUMAR & BHAT)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
PRINCIPLE SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT (LAQ-2),
M.S.BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD,
BANGALORE DISTRICT,
BANGALORE-560 001.
3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR/TAHSILDAR
BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
K.R.PURAM,
BANGALORE.
2
4. SRI H.R.PRABHAKAR,
S/O.LATE H.V.RAMASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT NO.14/1, 1ST FLOOR,
5TH MAIN, BDA EXTENSION,
BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE,
BANGALORE-560 085.
5. M/S.ICON COMPANY,
OFFICE AT:NO. 14/1, 1ST FLOOR,
5TH MAIN, BDA EXTENSION,
BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE,
BANGALORE-560 085,
REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI H.R.PRABHAKAR,
S/O.LATE H.V.RAMASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAGADISH MUNDARGI, G.A. FOR R1-3
R4 7 R5 ARE DELETED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT 19.1.10 PASSED BY R2 IN SO
FAR AS PETITIONER LAND IS CONCERNED. AS PER ANNEX-
F BY LEAVING THE R4 AS PER IN RESPECT OF SITE
NO.90/A KATHA NO.17/1, MEASURING EAST TO WEST 53
FEET AND NORTH TO SOUTH 51 FT. TOTALLY MEASURING
2,703 SQ.FT. AND SITE NO.43 AND 53 KATHA NO.17/1,
AND SITE NO.33 KATHA NO.17/1 TOTALLY MEASURING OF
SITE NO.43,53,33 TOTALLY MEASURING 2942 SQ.FT AND
SITE NO.25 KATHA NO.17/1, TOTALLY MEASURING 1680
SQ.FT AND SITE NO.48 KATHA NO.17/1 TOTALLY
MEASURING 1196 SQ. FT SITUATED AT WARD NO.14,
SEEGEHALLI, KR PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST
TALUK, TOTALLY MEASURING 8521 SQ.FT. THE PROPERTY
COMES UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF KR PURAM CMC,
LIMITS, BANGALORE.
3
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 19.01.2010 impugned at Annexure-F to the petition. The petitioner is also seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the respondents No.2 and 3 to restore the name of the petitioner in the RTC in respect of Sy.No.17/1 insofar as the land to which the petitioner is concerned.
2. The brief facts are that one Sri H.R.Prabhakar who is stated to have floated M/s. Icon Company had indulged in certain misdemeanor, whereby the general public were defrauded. In such circumstance, proceedings were initiated against said Sri H.R.Prabhakar and the respondent No.2 by the order dated 19.01.2010 has ordered that the property bearing Sy.No.17/1 measuring 4 acres, 27 guntas of Seegehalli Village, Krishnarajapura Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk is attached and a direction is issued to mutate the revenue entries in the name of the Government. 4
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had purchased the property bearing Sy.No.17/1 measuring 4 acres, 27 guntas of Seegehalli Village under a sale deed dated 23.02.2004 as at Annexure-A to the petition. It is the further case of the petitioner that on having acquired the said property, the petitioner had formed a layout demarcating the sites and had sold the sites as indicated in the schedule to the sale deed dated 27.12.2004, whereby the petitioner had conveyed the said sites in favour of said Sri H.R.Prabhakar. In that context, the petitioner contends that if at all the respondent No.2 has to take action against Sri H.R.Prabhakar for the purpose of attaching the properties and securing the revenue entries, the same can relate only to the sites which have been sold by the petitioner to Sri H.R.Prabhakar under the said sale deed dated 27.12.2004 and no attachment nor change of revenue entries could have been ordered by the respondent No.2 in respect of the remaining extent of land which is either retained by the petitioner or sold to other parties. It is in that circumstance, the petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the order dated 19.01.2010.
5
4. In that light, having noticed the documents at Annexures-A and D, prima facie the sale deeds would indicate the said position as contented by the petitioner. The order dated 19.01.2010 has been passed by the respondent No.2 in respect of the entire property, but the petitioner in any event has not been heard before passing the said order. The factual determination with regard to the entire extent of the property, the layout having been formed by the petitioner and the extent of the property still available by the petitioner are to be noticed by the respondent No.2 and a conclusion would have to be drawn in that regard.
5. Hence, at this juncture, I see no reason to set aside the order dated 19.01.2010. However, a direction is issued to the respondent No.2 to permit the petitioner to produce before him the documents referred to herein above and also such other supporting documents to indicate the extent of the properties still being owned by the petitioner or any other purchaser from the petitioner other than Sri H.R.Prabhakar. If the respondent No.2 finds that only the sites which have been indicated in the preamble to his order which is impugned herein has been purchased by 6 Sri H.R.Prabhakar, the order would thereafter be modified indicating attachment of such properties only and also for change of revenue entries in respect of the said sites and the remaining portion of the property in Sy.No.17/1 to which the petitioner claims shall be released from the order of attachment and necessary reversal of the entries be ordered in accordance with law.
6. To enable expeditious consideration by the respondent No.2, the petitioner shall now file all the documents along with a representation and a copy of this order with the respondent No.2 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent No.2 shall take a decision in the matter in the manner as indicated above as expeditiously as possible, but not later than four weeks thereafter.
7. In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE ST*