Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri A Boopathi vs State Of Karnataka on 25 September, 2019

Author: Aravind Kumar

Bench: Aravind Kumar

                         1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019

                      BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
 W.P. NOs.41244/2013 & 4620/2014 (KLR-RR/SUR)

BETWEEN:

SRI. A. BOOPATHI
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
S/O LATE T.M. ANJINEYALU
R/O SHETTIGERE VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE
NORTH (ADDL) TALUK
BANGALORE
ALSO AT NO.17, CLARKE ROAD
RICHARDS TOWN
BANGALORE - 560 005.
                                     ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANANDARAMA K, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
      DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
      VIDHANA SOUDHA
      BANGALORE - 560 001
      REPRESENTED HEREIN
      BY ITS SECRETARY.

2.    THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
      BANGALORE NORTH AND
      BANGALROE NORTH (ADDITIONAL)
      TALUKAS, BANGALORE DISTRICT
      BANGALORE - 560 001.
                                   ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA)
                            2


     THESE W.Ps. ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE COMMON ORDER DATED:04.01.2013 VIDE
ANNEX-AH PASSED BY THE SPECIAL DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH, R-2 HEREIN IN
SO FAR AS IT PERTAINS TO CASE NO.(33):NO.RRT(2)(NA)
CR-1030/2009-10 AND CASE NO.(35):NO.RRT(2) (NA)
CR-1028/2009-10.

     THESE   PETITIONS     COMING    ON    FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                      ORDER

Heard Sri Anandarama K., learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and Sri Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA appearing for respondents and perused the records.

2. In these petitions, correctness and legality of order dated 04.01.2013 (Annexure-AH) passed by second respondent - Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore North has been called in question, whereunder he had directed third respondent to delete the name of petitioner in the revenue records pertaining to land bearing Sy.Nos.80/P7 and 80/P11, new Nos.118 & 119 measuring 2 acres each situated 3 at Shettigere village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore.

3. It is submitted by learned Advocate appearing for petitioner that under similar circumstances, co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.10642-643/2013 (KLR-RR/SUR) by order dated 17.10.2016 had allowed the writ petitions. A copy of said order has been made available by learned Advocate appearing for petitioner. Perusal of said order would disclose that under similar circumstances, following order came to be passed:

"3. The State Government has issued a notification dated 10.10.2014 withdrawing the powers to deal with the matters by the Special Deputy Commissioner in Bengaluru District under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 retrospectively with effect from 10.10.2011. The impugned order has been passed on

4.1.2013. It is thus clear that the 2nd respondent had no jurisdiction to pass the said order on that date. Therefore, the writ petitions are allowed. The order dated 4.1.2013 at Annexure-H passed by the 2nd respondent insofar as the petitioner 4 is concerned, is hereby quashed reserving liberty to the competent authority to take appropriate action in accordance with law. No costs."

4. Accordingly, these writ petitions stands disposed of in terms of the order passed in W.P.Nos. 10642-643/2013 (KLR-RR/SUR) dated 17.10.2016 by quashing the impugned order dated 04.01.2013 (Annexure-AH) passed by second respondent insofar as it pertains to Case No.(33):No.RRT(2)(NA) CR- 1030/2009-10 and Case No.(35): No.RRT(2)(NA) CR- 1028/2009-10.

SD/-

JUDGE *sp