Karnataka High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Azgar Ahmed And Ors on 6 March, 2017
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2017
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A.PATIL
WRIT APPEAL No.200055/2017 (KLR-RR-SUR)
BETWEEN:
Sri Manikappa Patil
S/o Gurubasappa Patil
Aged about 86 years
Occ: Managing Director
M/s Uday Agro Processing Pvt.
Company Ltd., Kotnoor
Tq. & Dist. Kalaburagi
...APPELLANT
(By Sri R.R.Biradar, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
By its Principal Secretary
Revenue Department
M.S.Building
Bangalore-1
2. The Deputy Commissioner
Kalaburagi, Dist. Kalaburagi
2
3. The Assistant Commissioner
Kalaburagi, Dist. Kalaburagi
4. The Thasildar
Kalaburagi, Dist. Kalaburagi
...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri R.V.Nadagouda, Additional Advocate General)
This writ appeal is filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, praying to allow this appeal and
to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated
02.03.2017 in W.P.No.200844/2017 by allowing the said
writ petition as prayed for.
This appeal coming on for preliminary hearing this
day, Nagarathna, J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Heard.
Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents.
Though the writ appeal is listed for preliminary hearing, with the consent of learned counsel for the 3 appellant and learned Additional Advocate General the appeal is heard finally.
2. The legality and correctness of order dated 02.03.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.200844/2017 is assailed in this appeal.
3. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant was granted five acres of land by the State Government vide order dated 06.08.1971. That grant was however cancelled by order dated 24.03.1992. The cancellation was challenged in Appeal No.183/1992 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal' for the sake of brevity). The matter was remanded by order dated 31.01.1995 to the Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner once again cancelled the order of grant 4 by order dated 12.05.2016. Being aggrieved by the cancellation, Appeal No.482/2016 has been preferred by the appellant before the Tribunal which has issued an interim order of stay of cancellation dated 11.07.2016.
4. In the interregnum pursuant to the earlier cancellation of grant, mutation entries were changed and the name of the appellant was deleted and the name of the State was entered in the RTC. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred appeal before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity). By endorsement dated 23.11.2016 the Assistant Commissioner has held that the appeal was not admitted. That endorsement is at Annexure-G to the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the said endorsement, appellant preferred revision before the 5 Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Act. A similar endorsement has been issued by the Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-H dated 31.01.2017 stating that revision petition is not admitted. Being aggrieved by those endorsements, the appellant preferred the writ petition before this court. The learned Single Judge had held that the writ petition was premature and that the grievance of the appellant would be subject to the final result of the appeal pending before the Tribunal, even in respect of entries in the revenue records.
5. Appellant's counsel submitted that the matter pertaining to cancellation of grant is a separate set of proceedings. But the present proceeding is with regard to the change in the mutation entries made pursuant to the cancellation of grant made on 12.05.2016. He would submit that when the Tribunal has stayed the order of cancellation the mutation 6 entries could not have been changed and appellant's name could not have been deleted from the revenue records. That both the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner without hearing the appellant have passed impugned endorsements. There is violation of principles of natural justice and said endorsements are contrary to the proviso to Section 136 of the Act. He therefore, submitted that the appellant's appeal before the Assistant Commissioner may be restored so as to give appellant an opportunity to ventilate his grievance before that authority.
6. Learned Additional Advocate General has very fairly submitted that the impugned endorsements are by a quasi-judicial authority, therefore, compliance of the principles of natural justice as envisaged in Section 136 of the Act was necessary in the instant case.
7
7. In the circumstances, we hold that Anneuxre - G & H endorsement could not have been issued by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner respectively who have in the instant case not acted as quasi judicial authorities as the appellant has not been heard in the matter before the said endorsements have been issued to him. On that short ground alone the endorsements Annexure - G & H are liable to be quashed and are quashed.
8. In the circumstances, we also set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and consequently, restore the appeal filed by the appellant before Assistant Commissioner. Appellant is directed to appear before the Assistant Commissioner so as to prosecute his appeal before that authority. The Assistant Commissioner - respondent No.3 herein is directed to consider and dispose of the appeal filed by the appellant herein in accordance with law. We 8 express no opinion on the merits of the matter. Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
In view of the disposal of the appeal, I.A.II/2017 would not survive for consideration and the same also stands disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE sdu