Karnataka High Court
Shri.H.M.Chandru vs The Adlr Tahasildar on 7 March, 2023
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
WP No. 12480 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 12480 OF 2013 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHRI.H.M.CHANDRU
S/O LATE MOTEGOUDA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT HANTHUR VILLAGE
HARITTHUR POST, GONIBEEDU HOBLI
MUDIGERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALUR.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI H.P. GANGESHA GOWDA, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE ADLR TAHASILDAR
MUDIGERE TALUK
MUDIGERE-577132.
Digitally signed
by
MARIGANGAIAH
PREMAKUMARI 2. THE D.D.L.R.
Location: High
Court of CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT
Karnataka
CHIKKAMAGALUR-577101.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT
CHIKKAMAGALUR-577101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHOWRI H.R., AGA FOR R1-R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.11.2009 (WRONGLY
SHOWN AS 31.10.2009) PASSED BY R-3 IN R.P.NO.27/08-09
-2-
WP No. 12480 of 2013
VIDE ANNX-G IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO RESTRICTING THE
GRANT TO THE EXTENT OF 37 GUNTAS INSTEAD OF 2 ACRES
OF LAND IN SY.NO.55 SITUATED AT ANGADI VILLAGE,
GONIBEEDU HOBLI, MUDIGERE TALUK.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard learned counsel Sri.H.P.Gangesh Gowda for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.H.R.Showri for respondents. Perused the writ petition papers.
2. Petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated 30.11.2009 passed in R.P.No.27/08-09 vide Annexure-G insofar as it relates to restricting the grant to an extent of 37 guntas of land instead of 2 acres in Sy.No.55 situated at Angadi village, Gonibeedu Hobli, Mudigere Taluk.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's grand father was granted land bearing Sy.No.55, new Sy.No.232 measuring 2 acres situated at -3- WP No. 12480 of 2013 Angadi village, Gonibeedu Hobli, Mudigere Taluk on 16.11.1937. It is the case of the petitioner that while poding the land bearing old Sy.No.55 (new Sy.No.232) measuring 2 acres in terms of TQPH 712:57-58 dated 24.12.1968, the actual possession of the petitioner was not taken into consideration. Therefore the petitioner submitted an appeal in terms of Annexure-E requesting for fresh survey and podi of new Sy.No.232. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that during the pendency of the proceedings, the Deputy Commissioner obtained sketch/map as per Annexure-F and spot inspection report wherein it was stated that petitioner is in possession of only 37 guntas in Sy.No.55. But the petitioner was not provided any opportunity to have her say in the matter and spot inspection was conducted behind the back of the petitioner. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner is in possession of the land measuring 2 acres in new Sy.No.232. But based on erroneous report at Annexure-F, the Deputy Commissioner reduced the extent of land from 2 acres to 37 guntas. Learned counsel for the -4- WP No. 12480 of 2013 petitioner would submit that the said finding is contrary to the records and contrary to actual possession in respect of the land in Sy.No.232.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that though initially the petitioner's grand father was granted the land to an extent of 2 acres in Old Sy.No.55, (new No.232), when the podi took place in the year 1968 and when the actual measurement was taken, it was found that the petitioner was in possession of only 37 guntas of land in Sy.No.232. Hence, taking note of the same and on obtaining fresh spot inspection report in terms of Annexure-F, the Deputy Commissioner reduced the grant and restricted the same to 37 guntas in Sy.No.232. Thus, he justifies the action of the 3rd respondent-Deputy Commissioner.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that petitioner was not provided with sufficient opportunity to have her say in the appeal.
-5-WP No. 12480 of 2013
6. A perusal of the order impugned would indicate that the order is dated 31.10.2009 and in the course of the order, the Deputy Commissioner refers to spot inspection report dated 13.11.2009 which is subsequent to the order passed in the appeal at Annexure-F. The report of the Technical Assistant to Deputy Commissioner-cum-Deputy Director of Land Records also bears date of report as 20.11.2009 (Annexure-F). It appears that the petitioner had no opportunity to have her say on the report dated 13.11.2009 which was forwarded under covering letter dated 20.11.2009. However, the petitioner contends that she is in possession of the land measuring 2 acres as granted under Annexure-A and respondent Nos.1 and 2 ought to have provided an opportunity to have her say on the report and spot inspection ought to have conducted in the presence of the petitioner. In the above circumstances, the impugned order bearing No.R.P.No.27/08-09 dated 31.10.2009 requires to be set aside. Hence, the following order:
-6-WP No. 12480 of 2013
(a) Order bearing No.R.P.No.27/08-09 dated 31.10.2009 Annexure-G passed by respondent No.3 is set aside.
(b) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.3/Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamagalur District, Chikkamagaluru for fresh consideration, after obtaining spot inspection report with regard to occupation and possession of the petitioner in Sy.No.232 (Old No.55) of Angadi village, Gonibeedu Hobli, Mudigere Taluk and after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to have her say in the matter.
With the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54