Karnataka High Court
Sri Venkate Gowda @ Kundappa vs The Assistant Commissioner on 30 August, 2023
Author: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:31029
WP No. 23578 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO. 23578 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. VENKATE GOWDA @ KUNDAPPA,
S/O. CHIKKAPUTTEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
R/AT BACHAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJU S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
RAMANAGAR SUB-DIVISION,
Digitally signed RAMANAGAR - 562 159
by VIJAYA P
Location: HIGH
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 572 159.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE TAHSILDAR,
CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
CHANNAPATNA - 562 159
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 572 159.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANUKANKSHA KALKERI, HCGP)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.11.2020 IN NO.RRT(DIS)/
258/2020-21 PASSED BY R2-THE TAHSILDAR, CHANNAPATNA
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:31029
WP No. 23578 of 2022
TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-K TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 13.11.2020 passed by respondent No.2 - the Tahsildar at Annexure-K, whereby the Tahsildar has recorded that the mutation cannot be accepted and that further action to be taken pursuant to the order of the Assistant Commissioner in case No.LRF(CHA)79A&B/80/2012-013 dated 30.09.2013.
2. Sri. Raju S., learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that in terms of the order of the Assistant Commissioner at Annexure-E relating to the proceedings under Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagar by his order has clarified that the earlier proceedings initiated for violation of Sections 79A and 79B of the Act in LRF(CHA)79A&B/80/2012-013 -3- NC: 2023:KHC:31029 WP No. 23578 of 2022 has been cancelled and the mutation made in favour of subsequent purchaser Sri. Venkate Gowda in M.R.No.H22/2012-13 is to be accepted.
3. If that were to be so, the proceedings at Annexure-K, which is in the nature of an order requires to be set aside.
4. The admitted facts are that on 04.02.2012, Sri. Ramachandrachari executed a sale deed in favour of one Sri. M. Shivarame Gowda in respect of the land in Sy.No.42 measuring 2 acres 4 guntas situated at Bachahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Channapatna Taluk, Ramanagara District. Subsequently, on 21.11.2012 itself, the aforesaid sale deed came to be cancelled by a cancellation deed and subsequently on 06.03.2013, the said Sri. Ramachandrachari and his family members executed a registered sale deed dated 20.02.2013 in favour of the petitioner herein Sri. Venkate Gowda @ Kundappa.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:31029 WP No. 23578 of 2022
5. It is further averred that pursuant to the sale deed, the name of the petitioner has been effected in the revenue records in terms of the mutation entries in M.R.No.H22/2012-13.
6. It is to be noticed that in the interregnum on 30.09.2013, procedure under Sections 79A and 79B of the Act were initiated as against Sri. M. Shivarame Gowda in LRF.(CHA)79A&B/80/2012-013 and it was declared that the sale deed of 04.02.2012 was invalid as being violation of Sections 79A and 79B of the Act.
7. However, it is to be noticed that the Assistant Commissioner has passed an order at Annexure-E dated 07.07.2014, wherein the Assistant Commissioner took note of the cancellation of the sale deed of 04.02.2012 by cancellation deed dated 21.11.2012 and also noticing the subsequent sale and mutation in M.R.No.H22/2012-13 has clarified that the order of the Assistant Commissioner in LRF.(CHA)79A&B/80/2012-013 dated 30.09.2013 has been cancelled.
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:31029 WP No. 23578 of 2022
8. In light of the same and after perusal of the order at Annexure-E, the cancellation of earlier order of Assistant Commissioner in LRF.(CHA)79A&B/80/2012-013 having been made by the order of the Assistant Commissioner and upholding of mutation in M.R.No.H22/2012-13, the proceedings in the nature of order at Annexure-K is opposed to the order of the Assistant Commissioner at Annexure-E.
9. Accordingly, the order at Annexure-K is set aside and the petition is disposed off.
10. Needless to state the M.R.No.H22/2012-13 is to be affirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE MCR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60