Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sidramappa vs The State Of Karnataka & Ors on 15 July, 2019

Author: K.N.Phaneendra

Bench: K.N.Phaneendra

                                1


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                  KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2019

                         BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA

          W.P.No.203931/2018 (KLR-RR/SUR)

Between:

Siddramappa S/o Venkanna
Age: 59 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Village Jerbandi, Tq. Devadurga
Dist: Raichur - 584 111

                                        ... Petitioner
(By Sri Shivasharana Reddy, Advocate)

And:

1.     The State of Karnataka
       Department of Revenue
       M.S. Building
       Bangalore - 560 001

2.     The Deputy Commissioner
       Raichur - 584 102

3.     The Joint Director
       Department of Survey and
       Land Records
       Kalaburagi - 585 102

4.     The Deputy Director
       Department of Survey
                                  2


        And Land Records
        Bellary - 583 411

5.      The Assistant Director
        Department of Survey
        And Land Records
        Lingasugur - 584 123

6.      Smt. Saraswatamma
        W/o Basavarajappa
        Age: 70 years, Occ: Household
        R/o Village Jerbandi
        Tq. Devadurga
        Dist: Raichur - 584 111

7.      Sharanagouda S/o Basavarajappa
        Age: 39 years, Occ: Agriculture
        R/o Village Jerbandi
        Tq. Devadurga, Dist. Raichur - 584 111

                                               ... Respondents

(By Smt. Arati Patil, HCGP for R1 to R5)

    This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to:

a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the
   impugned order Annexure-T dated 10.08.2017 vide
   bearing No. ¸ÀASÉå C¦¯ï £ÀA.1/2016-17 passed by respondent
     No.2 Deputy Commissioner by withdrawing his own
     orders passed earlier in violation of principles of natural
     justice.

b) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus by directing the
   respondent No.2 to consider the representation of
   petitioner dated: 16.09.2017 vide Annexure-W for seeking
   Deputy Commissioner to pass fresh orders under
   provision of Sec.49(F) of KLR Act and direction be issued
                               3


   to respondent No.2 to pass fresh orders on merits by
   invoking Sec.49(F) of KLR Act.

      This petition coming on for preliminary hearing this
day, the Court made the following:

                         ORDER

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for the following reliefs:

a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the impugned order Annexure-T dated 10.08.2017 vide bearing No. ¸ÀASÉå C¦¯ï £ÀA.1/2016-17 passed by respondent No.2 Deputy Commissioner by withdrawing his own orders passed earlier in violation of principles of natural justice.
b) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus by directing the respondent No.2 to consider the representation of petitioner dated: 16.09.2017 vide Annexure-W for seeking Deputy Commissioner to pass fresh orders under provision of Sec.49(F) of KLR Act and direction be issued to respondent No.2 to pass fresh orders on merits by invoking Sec.49(F) of KLR Act.

2. It is seen from the records that the petitioner claiming that the petitioner's father was in possession of Sy.No.17/1 to the extent of 11acres 31 guntas and the mother of the respondent No.6 got entered incorrect entries showing Sy.No.17/1 to the extent of 10 acres 20 4 guntas and Sy.No.17/3 to the extent of 1 acre 11 guntas in their name, in this context a suit for declaration and injunction was filed and a collusive compromise petition decree was obtained. As per Annexure-E the respondent No.6 based on incorrect entries in ROR and as per compromise decree, got surveyed the said lands and bifurcated the lands of the petitioner and prepared Form No.10. Aggrieved by the same, the matter has been complained by the petitioner by way of an appeal to the DDLR who set aside the illegal order of bifurcation of the petitioner's land as per Annexure-F. The said order passed by the DDLR was confirmed by JDLR in an appeal by respondent No.6 as per Annexure-H on 22.03.2005. As per Annexure-J the order of DDLR and JDLR both were confirmed by KAT on appeal by respondent No.6 dated 24.03.2011. A writ petition was filed by respondent No.6 in W.P.No.81670/2011, wherein the respondent No.6 on technical grounds called in question the said order 5 stating that the appeal against the order of ADLR lies to JDLR as per Section 49F of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (for short 'the Act') and in fact this Court in W.P.Nos.81670/2011 & 81674-75/2011 vide order dated 13.02.2012 remitted the matter to JDLR Kalaburagi to dispose of the matter under Section 49F of the Act by setting aside the order passed by DDLR, JDLR and KAT. As per a Government Order the post of JDLR Kalaburagi was shifted to JDLR Raichur vide order dated 02.04.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner was given an endorsement about delegation of powers of JDLR to Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-L as the post of JDLR is not functioning.

3. In the above said context, the matter in fact came before the Deputy Commissioner and in fact this Court in W.P.No.81670/2011 as per Annexure-M directed the Deputy Commissioner to hear the parties and pass orders under Section 49F of the Act. But the 6 Deputy Commissioner instead of passing the orders under Section 49F of the Act, but invoked his jurisdiction under the revisional power under Section 56 of the Act and passed the order setting aside the order of ADLR. Again this led to filing of a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.81670/2011, again while disposing of the petition giving opportunity to respondent No.6 to file fresh petition against the order of the Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-P dated 22.08.2016. The respondent No.6 again filed Writ petition in Nos.204516-17/2016 stating that the invoking of Section 56 of the Act instead of Section 49F is without following the direction of this Court and also pointing out the mistake committed by the Deputy commissioner in passing the orders. In fact the Deputy Commissioner has passed the orders on merits by hearing both the parties and by setting aside the order of the ADLR vide order dated 28.07.2017 but failed to invoke Section 49F of the Act as per the directions of 7 the Court. Therefore, this Court in W.P.No.204516- 17/2016 called upon the Deputy Commissioner to be present before the Court on 10.08.2017. Accordingly, on that day the Deputy Commissioner appeared before the Court and showed the order passed by him withdrawing both the interim order and the orders passed by him on merits under Section 56 of the Act. On the basis of that, the present writ petition is filed for a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law under Section 49F of the Act.

4. That being the factual matrix of this particular case, the Deputy Commissioner was not supposed to pass any orders under Section 56 of the Act. When the Government has passed an order delegating the power of the JDLR to the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-L dated 17.03.2015, irrespective of the said wordings used in the said 8 notification, it virtually amounts to giving of the powers vested with JDLR to the Deputy Commissioner. As a persona designata the Deputy Commissioner virtually acts as JDLR for the purpose of disposing of the appeals. Therefore, for all practical purposes the Deputy Commissioner has to pass orders under Section 49F of the Act and not under Section 56 of the Act.

5. Under the above said circumstances, when both the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the interim order as well as the orders on merits have been set at naught by virtue of his own order withdrawing the earlier orders passed by him, now the matter has to be disposed of by the Deputy Commissioner by passing orders under Section 49F of the Act. Therefore, under the above said circumstances, the petitioner is right in approaching this Court for a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to take up the matter afresh and dispose of the same in accordance 9 with law under Section 49F of the Act. Hence the following:

ORDER The writ petition is partly allowed. The Deputy Commissioner, Raichur is hereby directed to pass fresh orders after securing and hearing both the parties and after providing opportunity to both the parties, particularly he has to pass orders under Section 49F of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The said exercise has to be done as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE swk Ct: RRJ