A S Abdul Azeez vs The Deputy Commissioner on 28 November, 2018

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

A S Abdul Azeez vs The Deputy Commissioner on 28 November, 2018

Bench: G.Narendar

                              1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018

                            BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

        WRIT PETITION No.10255/2013 (KLR-RR/SUR)


BETWEEN:

A.S.ABDUL AZEEZ,
S/O LATE ABDUL SUBHAN,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OCCU: AGRICULTURE,
R/O SAVAI PALYA,
KASABA HOBLI,
SHIMOGA TALUK-577201.                    ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.S.NAGARAJA, ADV.)


AND:

1.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
       SHIMOGA DISTRICT,
       SHIMOGA 577201.

2.     THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
       SHIMOGA SUB-DIVISION,
       SHIMOGA 577201.

3.     THE TAHASILDAR,
       SHIMOGA TALUK,
       SHIMOGA 577 201.              ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. RAFEEUNISA, HCGP)
                               2



      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 26.9.11 VIDE ANNX-M PASSED BY THE R1 IN
CASE NO. R MISC 36/11-12 AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED
19.7.11 VIDE ANNX-L PASSED BY THE R2 AND ALSO THE
ORDER DATED 14.12.10 VIDE ANNX-K PASSED BY THE R3 AND
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO MUTATE THE NAME OF THE
PETR IN RESPECT OF LAND IN SY NO.97 OF SULEBYILU
VILLAGE, SHIMOGA TO MEASURING 3 ACRES 19 GUNTAS.

    THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR 'PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP' THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would draw the attention of this Court to Annexure-K, the proceedings of the Tahsildar whereby the Tahsildar has rejected the request of the petitioner to mutate his name in the Revenue Records pursuant to the sale deed dated 31.03.2009 on the premise that he has not received the report from the concerned Revenue Inspector with regard to the violation of provisions of Section 79 A & B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. Hence, he deemed it fit to reject the request of the petitioner 3 to mutate the name of the petitioner in the Revenue Records pursuant to the registered sale deed.

3. The petitioner being aggrieved carried it in the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner without applying his mind and without looking into the order passed by the Tahsildar has proceeded to construe the same as an order holding that the transaction is in violation of Section 79A & B of the Act. The said contention is erroneous as a bare reading of Annexure-K would demonstrate that the Tahsildar neither initiated any proceedings nor did he conclude with regard to the alleged violation of provision of Sections 79A & B of the Land Reforms Act.

4. That apart, the Authorities have failed to look into the provisions of Sections 128 & 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. That on any conveyance being reported to the Revenue Authority, the Revenue Authority are bound to effect the changes in the Revenue Records. In the event, the 4 transaction is alleged to be one in violation of the provisions of Sections 79A & B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act then it was mandatory upon the Revenue Authorities to put the interested persons on notice thereafter afford an opportunity of hearing and conduct an enquiry and thereafter pass appropriate orders. In the instant case, the fact suggest otherwise.

5. On a reading of the impugned orders passed by the Tahsildar and the Assistant Commissioner non- application of mind is writ large on the face of it. Further, no enquiry as mandated under the Act has been conducted nor the petitioner has been put on notice with regard to the alleged violation of Sections 79A & B of the Act. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders warrant interference at the hands of this Court.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. The orders at Annexures-K, L and M are set aside.

The quashing of the order will not come in the way of the respondents-Authorities to initiate action in accordance with law. In the event, they allege that there is violation of the provisions of the Land Reforms Act, it is open for them to initiate proceedings if they deem it so necessary. The Authorities are directed to consider the request of the petitioner for effecting the mutation of his name in the Revenue Records in accordance with provisions of Sections 128 and 129 of the Land Revenue Act.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE VM CT:HR

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court