Karnataka High Court
Smt. Bhagyalakshmi vs The Regional Commissioner on 19 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:33443
WP No. 18440 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO. 18440 OF 2023 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. BHAGYALAKSHMI
W/O LATE K P BASAVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
2. SMT JYOTHI
W/O B BHASKAR
D/O LATE K P BASAVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
3. SRI SRINIVAS B
S/O LATE K P BASAVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
Digitally
signed by R ALL ARE R/O AT NO 979, 25TH CROSS,
DEEPA SIT LAYOUT, TUMKUR 572102
Location: ...PETITIONERS
HIGH (BY SRI. SATHYA D., ADVOCATE FOR
COURT OF SRI. K V NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE SUB DIVISION, 2ND FLOOR,
BMTC BUILDING K H ROAD, SHANTI NAGAR,
BANGALORE 560027
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR 572101
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:33443
WP No. 18440 of 2023
3. TUMKUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
REPRESENTED BY THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER,
TUMKUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT 572101
4. REVENUE OFFICER
TUMKUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
TUMKUR 572101
5. K P GOVINDAIAH
S/O LATE PANJAIAH, MAJOR, R/O 539/1
3RD MAIN ROAD, A BLOCK, 2ND STAGE,
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE 560010
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. BOPANNA, AGA FOR R1 & R2
SRI. SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4
SRI. RAJESH SHETTIGAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 AT ANNX-C DTD
05.10.2021 IN MUN/RP/42/2021.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners filed this writ petition seeking for quashing of Annexure-C dated 05.10.2021 passed by respondent No.1.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:33443 WP No. 18440 of 2023
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:
The petitioners filed a petition under Section 306(1) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act on the file of respondent No.2 seeking annulling of the khata in respect of respondent No.4. The proceedings were transferred to the file of respondent No.1, meanwhile, the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 passed away. As such, the petitioners were not aware of the proceedings and could not participate in it. It appears that, the notice has been issued to respondent No.1 and same was returned with a shara as K.P.Basavaraju is no more. Having regard to the said fact, the respondent No.1 has passed the order on 05.10.2021, thereby dismissed the appeal. It is contended that, the order passed by respondent No.1 is against a dead person. Hence, impugned order is nullity in the eyes of law. Hence, prayed to allow the writ petition. -4-
NC: 2024:KHC:33443 WP No. 18440 of 2023
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 filed the petition under Section 306(1) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act on the file of respondent No.2. The said proceedings were transferred to the file of respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 issued a notice to the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3. The said notice returned with a shara as said K.P.Basavaraju is deceased. He submits that the petitioners were not aware of the proceedings pending before respondent No.1 and the order passed by the respondent No.1 is against the dead person and it's in the nullity in the eyes of law. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to respondent No.1 for reconsideration.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:33443 WP No. 18440 of 2023
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the writ petition may be disposed of and matter may be remitted to the respondent No.1 for reconsideration.
6. Perused the records and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.
7. It is not in dispute that, the husband of the petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 filed the petition under Section 306(1) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act on the file of respondent No.2. The said proceedings were transferred to respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 issued notice to the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3. The postal cover returned with a shara as 'Addressee deceased'. The petitioners were not aware of the proceedings pending before the respondent No.1 and they could not participate in the proceedings pending before the respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 has passed the order against a dead person. The order passed by respondent No.1 is nullity in -6- NC: 2024:KHC:33443 WP No. 18440 of 2023 the eyes of law. Hence, on these grounds, impugned order is liable to be set aside.
8. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The writ petition is allowed.
Impugned order dated 05.10.2021 vide Annexure-C, passed by respondent No.1 is hereby quashed.
The matter is remitted to the respondent No.1. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file a necessary application to come on record before the respondent No.1, thereafter respondent No.1 after hearing the parties shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS