Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Karnataka High Court

Sri S Kannan vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 June, 2022

Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda

Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda

                          1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                       BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

       WRIT PETITION NO. 4071 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI S KANNAN
S/O V SRINIVASAN
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO 1014
2ND BLOCK ANNANAGAR
MADRAS 40

                                     PETITIONER

(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI. KARTHIK V, ADVOCATE)


AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
       DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE
       VIKASA SOUDHA
       BENGALURU 560001

2.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
       BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
       DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BHAVAN
       BEERASANDRA (CHAPPARAKALLU) 562110
                           2



3.   THE TAHSILDAR
     HOSAKOTE TALUK
     HOSAKOTE,
     BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562114

4.   THE TALUKA LAND SURVEYOR
     HOSAKOTE TALUK
     TALUK OFFICE
     HOSAKOTE
     BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562114

5.   SRI P H C GOWDA
     S/O LATE HANUMEGOWDA
     BHARATHI CLINIC
     IMMADIHALLI ROAD
     WHITE FIELD
     BANGALORE 560037

6.   SRI K LAKSHMAN
     S/O LATE T KRISHNAN
     NOBEL HOUSE
     THULASI THEATRE ROAD
     MARTHAHALL
     BANGALORE-66

7.   K.NARAYANASWAMY
     S/O LATE SEERAPPA
     AGE ABOUT 60 YEARS

8.   MUNIYAPPA
     S/O LATE SEERAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

9.   GOVINDAPPA
     S/O LATE SEERAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

     RESPONDENT NOS.7 TO 9 ARE
     RESIDING AT
                         3



     KORALURU VILLAGE
     KASABA HOBLI
     HOSKOTE TALUK
     BENGALURU RURAL 562114. .
                                   RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.R. SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4
 SRI. A.KESHAVA BHAT FOR R5 AND R6
 SRI. HARSHA KUMAR GOWDA H.R FOR R7 TO R9)



     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DTD.21.10.2019 IN R.P. 7/2017
PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU
RURAL DSITRICT A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-M AND PHODI ORDER DTD.17.7.2021 PASSED
BY THE TALUKA SURVEYOR HOSAKOTE TALUK A COPY OF
WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-S AND DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO RESTORE THE LAND OF THE
PETITIONER TO HIM AND ETC.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                    ORDER

A Revision was filed before Deputy Commissioner under Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, challenging the assignment of Sy.No.213 which was carved out of Sy.No.42 in a Phodi and Durasti proceedings initiated by respondent Nos.7 to 9, who 4 claimed to be the legal representatives of late Sri. Seerappa, the original grantee. The Deputy Commissioner by an order dated 21.10.2019 allowed the Revision and passed impugned order, which reads as under:

DzÉñÀ "ªÉÄð£À PÀArPÉUÀ¼À°è «ªÀj¹gÀĪÀAvÉ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¨sÀÆPÀAzÁAiÀÄ C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ 1964gÀ PÀ®A 56gÀ°è zÀvÀÛªÁzÀ C¢üPÁgÀzÀAvÉ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ j«dû£ï CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÄgÀ¸ÌÀ j¹, ºÉƸÀPÉÆÃmÉ vÁ®ÆèPÄÀ , PÀ¸À¨Á ºÉÆç½, PÉÆgÀ¼Æ À gÀÄ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ºÀ¼É ¸À.£ÀA.42 ºÉƸÀ ¸À.£ÀA.213gÀ ¥ÉÆÃr zÀÄgÀ¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝUÉƽ¹zÉ. ªÀÄÆ® ªÀÄAdÆj PÀqÀvÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß ¥Àj²Ã°¹PÉÆAqÀÄ G¨sÀAiÀÄvÀæjUÀÆ ºÁUÀÆ J¯Áè ºÀPÄÀ ÌzÁgÀjUÀÆ £ÉÆÃn¸ï ¤Ãr CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ ªÀÄAdÆj zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ CAzÀgÉ ªÀÄAdÆj C¢üPÀÈvÀ eÁÕ¥À£À, ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½ aÃn, gÉ«£ÀÆå £ÀPëÉ, PÀAzÁAiÀÄ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÄÀ ºÁUÀÆ ºÀPÄÀ ÌzÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÄÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ d«Ää£À ¸Áé¢üãÀªÀ£ÀÄß UÀt£ÉUÉ vÉUÉzÄÀ PÉÆAqÀÄ ¥ÀÄ£ÀB ºÉƸÀzÁV C¼ÀvÉ ªÀiÁr, ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ EvÀåxÀð¥Àr¸À®Ä ¨sÀÆzÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÄÀ , ºÉƸÀPÆ É ÃmÉ vÁ®ÆèPÄÀ ºÁUÀÆ vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgï, ºÉƸÀPÆ É ÃmÉ vÁ®ÆèPÄÀ gÀªÀjUÉ DzÉò¹zÉ.

DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß GPÀÛ ¯ÉÃR£À ¤Ãr, UÀtQÃPÀÈvÀUÆ É ½¹zÀ ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß N¢, ¥ÀjµÀÌj¹ ªÀÄÄPÀÛ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ:

21-10-2019gÀAzÀÄ ¥ÀæZÀÄgÀ¥Àr¹zÉ."

2. As could be seen from the said order, the Deputy Commissioner set aside the phodi of Sy.No.42 and assignment of New Sy.No.213 and specifically directed the concerned authority to examine the original records, issue notice to all the interested persons, hear them and after considering their documents and their possession and after conducting measurement pass fresh orders in accordance with the rules.

3. It is the case of the counsel for petitioner that the respondent No.3 before the Deputy Commissioner, i.e., Sri. K.T. Ramanjanappa had conveyed portion of this land to them under sale deed dated 05.12.1994 and on the basis of said sale deed, 6 they have acquired right over Sy.No.42. It is his further case that without notifying them, the concerned authorities have conducted Phodi and Durasti as per Annexure-S. He therefore, contends that they have been seriously prejudiced and it is also his further case that their land is sought to be appropriated in this Phodi and Durasti.

4. Learned counsel Sri. A. Keshava Bhat appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6, on the other hand contends that the petitioner has absolutely no subsisting interest in the lands in question. He submits that the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner has been declared to be void by the Assistant Commissioner for contravention of Section 79A and 79B of Karnataka Land Reforms Act and the appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed for non prosecution. He specifically contends that no application has been filed for restoration and therefore 7 the land stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances and as a consequence, the petitioner would have no right to participate in the Phodi and Durasti proceedings.

5. Sri. Vikram Huilgol, learned Senior counsel, on the other hand contends as a matter of fact an application for restoration has been filed and the same is pending consideration before Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.

6. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that petitioner was not notified of the Phodi and Durasti conducted as per Annexure-S. In the light of the fact, the Deputy Commissioner had himself directed the authority to issue notice to all interested persons and thereafter conduct a phodi and Durasti, the impugned Durasti conducted in the absence of the petitioner and without notifying petitioner cannot obviously be 8 sustained and therefore, Annexure-S is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. Writ petition is allowed.

7. The concerned authorities shall re-notify all the parties concerned including the petitioner, examine their records as directed by the Deputy Commissioner and conduct a fresh Phodi and Durasti. The authority shall also notify respondent Nos. 5 and 6, who also claim to be purchasers from respondent No.3, Sri.K.T. Ramanjanappa.

8. It is open for the parties to put forth all contentions before the authorities including the contention that the petitioner has no subsisting interest in the lands in question. The authorities shall consider all such contentions and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

9. The authority shall also consider contention of respondent Nos.5 and 6 that the lands that are purchased by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are completely different from the land purchased by petitioner, while examining the records and conducting Phodi and Durasti.

10. The concerned authority shall undertake and complete this exercise within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

SD/-

JUDGE BH