Karnataka High Court
Sri Bhadresh N Desai vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 February, 2020
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION NO.4151 OF 2020 [KLR - RES]
BETWEEN:
1. Sri Bhadresh N.Desai,
S/o. late Natubhai Desai,
Aged about 61 years,
2. Smt. Geeta B. Desai,
W/o. Sri Bhadresh N.Desai,
Aged about 58 years,
3. Sri Jugal Desai,
S/o. Sri Bhadresh N. Desai,
Aged about 32 years,
4. Smt. Smriti Desai,
W/o. Sri Jugaldesai,
Aged about 31 years,
All are R/at No.885,
Gokul, 6th Cross, 6th Block,
Koramangala, Bengaluru - 560 095.
... Petitioners
(By Sri Leeladhar H.P., Advocate)
2
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By its Principal Revenue Secretary,
Vidhana Soudha,
Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
2. The Assistant Commissioner,
Bengaluru South-Sub Division,
Bengaluru.
Office at No.2nd Floor,
Kandaya Bhavan,
Kempegowda Road,
Bengaluru - 560 009.
3. Smt.Janakamma,
W/o.Narayana Reddy,
Aged about 77 years,
4. Sri Babu Reddy,
S/o. late Narayana Reddy,
Aged about 51 years,
5. Sri Prakash Reddy,
S/o.late Narayana Reddy,
Aged about 47 years,
SI.No.3 to 5 are R/at:
Kanappana,
Agrahara Village,
Electronic City Post,
Begur Hobli,
Bengaluru - 560 100.
6. Nagaraj Reddy,
Son-in-law of respondent No.3,
Major in age,
R/at No.163/1,
3
Lakshminarasimhaswamy Nilaya,
Nanjuda Reddy Layout,
Near Yellamma Temple,
Konappana Agrahara,
Electronic City,
Bengaluru - 560 100.
7. Sri S. Daulath Ram,
S/o. A.Summermal,
Aged about 63 years,
R/at No.33, B.Lal Masjid Street,
Civil Station,
Bengaluru - 560 051.
... Respondents
(By Sri.Y.D.Harsha, AGA for R1 & R2
Sri S.K. Acharya for Sri S.Srikanth, Advocates
For C/R3 to C/R5
Notice to R6 and R7 is dispensed with)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the
entire records in dispute on the file of the R-2 and also
the entire records and quash the impugned order dated
12.12.2019 passed by the R-2 in dispute allowing the
I.A.No.1 U/S 5 of Limitation Act and I.A.-2 U/S 55 of
the Karnataka Land Revenue Act R/w Section 151 of
Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the R-3 to 6 herein
under Annexure-A.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary
Hearing, this day the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner filed the present writ petition for writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 4 12.12.2019 passed by respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division by allowing I.A.No.1 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and I.A.No.2 under Section 55 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act respectively by the respondents herein without assigning any reason while allowing the said I.A.'s.
2. Though several contentions are raised by learned counsel for the parties, this Court confined the present writ petition only against the impugned order dated 12.12.2019.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 have filed an appeal in RA(S)295/2018-19 against the mutation entry made in M.R.No.2/1974-75 in respect of Sy.No.5/2. Along with the said appeal, admittedly the respondents have filed two I.A.'s one under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the appeal and another I.A. under Section 55 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act to 5 stay the further proceedings pursuant to the mutation orders passed by the jurisdictional Tahsildar raising various contentions. The present petitioners filed objections to the said I.A.'s. The Assistant Commissioner without considering the averments made in the application as well as the objections filed by the petitioners has proceeded to pass one-line order "I.A.No.1, I.A.No.2 allowed, stay granted, case posted to 07.01.2020." Hence the present writ petition is filed for the relief sought for.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis only against the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 12.12.2019.
5. Sri Leeladhar H.P., learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there was delay of about 30 to 40 years in filing the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner against mutation M.R.No.2/1974-75. Though the petitioners have filed their detailed 6 objections to the I.A.'s, the Assistant Commissioner without considering the same, proceeded to pass the impugned order without assigning any reasons. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly sought to allow the present writ petition.
6. Per contra Sri S.K. Acharya for Sri S. Srikanth, learned counsel for caveators/respondent Nos.3 and 5 and Sri Y.D. Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner sought to dismiss the writ petition.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the present respondent Nos.3 to 5 filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner in RA(S)295/2018-19 against the mutation in M.R.No.2/1974-75 in respect of Sy.No.5/2. It is also not in dispute that respondent Nos.3 to 5 have also filed separate application for condonation of delay 7 as well as to stay the proceedings pursuant to the mutation entry. The petitioners also filed objections to the said I.A.'s. Therefore, it is the duty of the Assistant Commissioner to consider the averments made in the I.A. applications and the objections and then pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Very strangely the Assistant Commissioner passed one- line order "I.A.No.1, I.A.No.2 allowed, stay granted, case posted to 07.01.2020" which is not a speaking order. The Assistant Commissioner who is the appellate authority is expected to assign reasons to condone the delay and granting stay. Same has not been done in the present case. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the matter requires for fresh consideration.
8. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 12.12.2019 made in No.RA(S)295/2018-19 allowing I.A.Nos.1 and 2 are 8 hereby quashed. Matter is remanded to the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division to reconsider the I.A.'s as well as the objections filed by the petitioners and pass appropriate reasoned order strictly in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. Till consideration of I.A'.s and the objections, there shall not be any precipitative action against the petitioners by the respondents and both the parties are hereby directed to maintain status- quo as on today in respect of the property in question.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE PN/-