Karnataka High Court
Sri M Muniraju S/O Late Muniveerappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 June, 2012
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
WP No.14617/2012(KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
SRI M MUNIRAJU S/O LATE MUNIVEERAPPA
@ KARAGADA MUNIVEERAPPA
R/AT NO.15, BHAGALURU VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT -562 149
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. N.R. RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR
S.R.S. LEGAL SOLUTIONS)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS REVENUE SECREARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE -560 001
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMSISOINER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
2
BANGALORE.
3. THE TAHSILDAR
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. M.C. AKKAMAHADEVI, AGA. FOR
RESPONDENTS)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R2
DTD.16.11.2009 VIDE ANNEX-F IN RESPECT OF
LAND BEARING OLD SY. 89 AND NEW SY. NO.89/P6,
MEASURING 4 ACRES, SITUATED AT
MANCHAPPANAHASAHALLI, JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, AND ALSO QUASHING
THE MUTATION ORDER PASSED BY R3 DTD.5.2.10
VIDE ANNEX-H AND TO RESTORE THE EARLIER
ENTRIES STOOD IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER IN
RESPECT OF THE AFORESAID LAND.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, THE
COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner is seeking for quashing of the order dated 16.11.2009 Annexure-F passed by 2 nd respondent Special Deputy Commissioner in 3 RRT/2/NA/CR/226/2008-09, whereunder 3rd respondent has been directed to delete the name of the petitioner in the Revenue records on the ground that it is a Government land and it was not granted to the petitioner or his predecessors in title.
2. Heard Sri N.R. Raghavendra, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and Smt. M.C. Akkamahadevi, learned Addl. Government Advocate for respondents. Perused the records.
3. The case on hand is a glaring example with which the revenue authorities have acted in a lopsided manner without application of mind and in a very casual manner have passed the order. This I say so because, petitioner admittedly claims to be a General Power of Attorney Holder of the legal heirs of the deceased grantee. Power of Attorney is a document executed by a principal in favour of his agent to act on 4 his/her behalf or on their behalf in respect of a given property to do such acts as mentioned in the authority that is given. It is this right alone which is conferred on the agent and nothing beyond it. In the instant case, General Power of Attorney holder said to have been executed by the legal heirs of the original grantee (Muniyappa) is produced at Annexure-B which is dated 3.1.1994. Admittedly, there are no other documents which evidences conveying of title by principal to the agent. There is no other document which would reflect that there is an agency coupled with interest which has been transferred in favour of the transferee i.e. petitioner herein who claims to be the general power of attorney holder and the revenue authorities based on such Power of Attorney have mutated the revenue records by deleting the name of the original grantee and transferring the katha in favour of the petitioner herein who is only a Power of Attorney holder in respect of survey No.89 measuring 4 acres as 5 evidenced from the mutation register extract at Annexure-C.
4. A perusal of the said document namely mutation register extract at Annexure-C and C1 would reflect that it is mentioned as 'GPA - Kraya' which means GPA-Sale which is unheard of. The averments made in the Writ Petition does not reflect that there is any agreement of sale executed by the legal heirs of the original grantee so as to bring this document within the sweep of a document which is an agency coupled with interest. Hence, the initial transfer of kathas, or mutation or any right conferred on the petitioner to seek such transfer itself is erroneous and illegal.
6. Be that as it may. Having committed such illegality respondent authorities have continued to perpetrate the same which has now resulted in the impugned order being passed, whereunder the second 6 respondent on the basis of a report submitted by 3 rd respondent has initiated suomoto proceedings against the petitioner for deleting the name of the petitioner from the revenue records. In the impugned order, it has been stated by second respondent that notice of the proceedings have been served on petitioner by affixing copy of such notice over the land in question. Admittedly, the legal heirs of the original grantees, were not issued with any notice and the record of rights reflects the name of the petitioner herein and as such the proceedings has been initiated against the petitioner herein alone. It is the specific stand of the petitioner that no notice has been served on him in the proceedings and as such he could not appear and defend before the second respondent authority. Thus, impugned order suffers from vice of opportunity being extended to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, impugned order cannot be sustained and same is liable to be quashed. However, it is made clear that 7 second respondent while re-adjudicating the matter is at liberty to take any decision including ordering for deleting the name of petitioner from the revenue records if he finds that the petitioner does not have any title to the property in question and in the absence of any title having been passed on to the petitioner either by the original grantee or by his legal heirs, katha in respect of property in question could not have been transferred to the name of the petitioner in violation of sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law keeping in mind the observations made herein above. With these observations, I pass the following:
ORDER
1) Writ Petition is hereby allowed.
2) Order dated 16.11.2009 Annexure-F passed by 2nd respondent is hereby quashed.
3) Matter is remitted back to the second 8 respondent for passing fresh orders by keeping in mind the observations made hereinabove.
4) Petitioner shall appear before the second respondent without awaiting for any further notice on 25.6.2012.
5) No order as to costs.
6) Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE PL