Karnataka High Court
Avalamma vs State Of Karnataka on 9 November, 2017
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
WRIT PETITION NO.17258 OF 2012 (KLR/RR-SUR)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.27718 OF 2012 (KLR/RR-SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. AVALAMMA
W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/AT UNASUR VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
2. MUNITHAYAMMA
D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT UNASUR VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK ...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT.S.AMRUTHA SINDHU, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
BY ITS SECRETARY
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KANDAYA BHAVANA
REVENUE BUILDINGS
2
K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009
3. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT
BOARD, HEAD OFFICE:14/3, 2ND FLOOR
R.P.BUILDINGS, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI KIRANKUMAR T.L., AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI B.B.PATIL, ADV. FOR R3)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 3.4.2010 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE -A AND
DECLARE THAT PETITIONERS HAVE TITLE TO THE SAID
LAND IN SY.NO.8/1 OF UNASOORU VILLAGE AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: -
ORDER
The petitioners herein are impugning the order dated 3.4.2010 in No.RRT/2/NA/CR/732/09-10 before the 2nd respondent - Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are owners of land to an extent of 1 acre in Sy.No.8/1 of 3 Unasur, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Addl. Taluk. According to them the aforesaid proceedings before 2nd respondent is initiated to consider whether the aforesaid land is Government Gomal land or private land belonging to the petitioners. In the said proceedings it is held that the said land is Gomal land.
3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the said proceedings was initiated against husband of 1st petitioner and father of 2nd petitioner, who is no more. However, no notice was served on them. In fact the records in aforesaid proceedings would indicate that notice was served on Narayanappa's son though he did not have a son. To substantiate the same the petitioners herein have produced heirship certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Addl. Taluk which is in sur/333/89-90 dated 1.7.1989, wherein it is stated petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the only legal heirs of late Narayanappa. According to petitioners, notice of the 4 said proceedings is issued to non-existing son of Narayanappa, thereafter the order impugned is passed on 3.4.2010.
4. According to petitioners, the land in question, namely land bearing Sy.No.8/1 of Unasur, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Additional Taluk, was granted to the 1st petitioner's husband Narayanappa's ancestors to an extent of 2 acres in 1940's, which was for the benefit of joint family of Gangappa. It is stated that subsequent to death of Gangappa, the said land was divided between the two branches of Gangappa, namely Muni Nagappa and Muniga. First petitioner's husband Narayanappa is the son of Muni Nagappa. He got 1 acre to his share and his uncle Muniga's family succeeded to another 1 acre. The grievance of petitioners is that though said 1 acre of land is registered in the name of Narayanappa, proceeding is initiated before the 2nd respondent under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land 5 Revenue Act, 1964 as if the said land is Government Gomal land, which is wrongly entered in the name of 1st petitioner's husband Narayanappa.
5. According to petitioners, when the proceeding was initiated against Narayanappa, son of Muni Nagappa in respect of 1 acre of land, Narayanappa had already died and notice was not served on the petitioners, who are his only legal heirs. Instead, it is stated that notice is served on somebody as if he is son of deceased Narayanappa and forfeited the land to Government, whereas no proceeding was initiated in respect of another 1 acre of land. It is further stated that entire 2 acres of land is acquired by KIADB - 3rd respondent in this proceeding and in respect of 1 acre of land, which has fallen to the share of Narayanappa's uncle Muniga's family, compensation is already paid. When it comes to 1 acre of land, which has fallen to the share of Narayanappa a stand is taken that it is Government 6 Gomal land and initiated proceeding, wherein the said land is forfeited to Government, which is impugned in this writ petition.
6. Heard the learned Counsel for petitioners and as well as the contesting respondents. On going through the material on record, it is clearly seen that no notice is served on petitioners, who are the only legal heirs of deceased Narayanappa. In the absence of notice to them, question of declaring the land in question as Government Gomal land does not arise, more particularly when another portion of same land ie., remaining 1 acre, which has gone to the family of Muniga being accepted as the land belonging to his legal heirs, compensation having been paid to them, the order impugned passed by 2nd respondent cannot be accepted and the same is required to be quashed. 7
7. Accordingly, Writ Petition is allowed. The order dated 3.4.2010 in No.RRT/2/NA/CR/732/2009-2010 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, wherein the Special Deputy Commissioner is directed to provide sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to place all the documents on record to substantiate their claim in respect of aforesaid 1 acre of land as the land which was granted in favour of their forefathers in 1940's, that they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. To ensure that the remanded matter is disposed of at the earliest, it is made clear that the Special Deputy Commissioner shall take up the proceedings in No.RRT/2/NA/CR/732/09-10 on 20.11.2017, on which day the petitioners shall either be present in person or through their counsel and submit their objections along with relevant documents, thereafter within 90 days the said proceedings shall be 8 concluded in accordance with law and on merits of the case.
8. With the above observation, this petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE NG* CT: MV