Sri Narayanappa vs State Of Karnataka on 2 June, 2009

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Narayanappa vs State Of Karnataka on 2 June, 2009

Bench: L.Narayana Swamy

-1-

IN TEE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

QATED THIS THE 2"" DAY OF JUNE, 2009 

BEFORE

THE HODYELIS MR. JUSHCE LNARAYANA s'3?:.A1~eﬁ'.V,: "   .

WRIT PETITION N<).166j5'("2oe'm,R}    

BETWEEN:

1

SRI NARAYANAPPA  
S/0 LATE SR1 NANJE GOWBAM'
49 YEARS,    
R/AT MADAG0Nm'__N~AHA_i;L1_   _ .

MADURE HOBIA, KA--:::2:wR    * 
§OD9Al3ALLAPURA *mI.UI{"' :  "

BANGALORE)'--R_URA:;"i3E-S'TRI(3'Tf__ '  'jéiéfririorsga

(By Sri 2;? B TSAﬁ.?§%s1v :;i§PP§;'

ANB :

1

,,  TE 0F"'i{Ai€eVNA1§AKA
~.%.I'<E:-*~.,B¥. ITS SESRHFARY

'A ' V. ., REV"ErFa¥.13£*}VDEPARTMENT

1'-.4."s.,._B"uI'D;..i-N cs,

._ "- .__DR;'BI'R,_AM'BEDKAR VEEDHI
A _ BANGALORE 1.

 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

_ EOEEEABALLAPUR SUB DWISION,

 ' " BANGALORE RURAL DES'I'RIC'I',
' mnrum BLOCK,

DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE 3..

SR} NAGENDRA
S/0 LATE SR1 M N GUNDA RAG

T



mg-

AGED 49 YEARS,

R/AT N02/Oi, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
KEMf'EGWQDf& NAGAR,
BANGALORE ~ 19.

4 SR: PHANI KUMAR

S/0 LATE SR1 M N GUNDA RAID
AGED 46 YEARS,

R/AT No.2/01, QM) MAIN RQAD, ._
KEMPEGWOIJA NAGAR, I
BANGALORE 19.

5 SR1 M KRISHNA REDDY  

S/O SR1 MUNISWAMY RED'DY'I.
AGED 55 YEARS,   --
R/O MUNAGANAHALL1 q *
YENAMALAPUDI PC)'-S'.I",_ 
CHINTHAMANI 'i.'ALUK,I.

KOLAR I)IS'I'§2I(3'I',   

(By sRI;SAT*I(AI§ARgI*i?AN«.§§II§Ig3-H,_--IIE:GP, ADV. FOR R--1 85 2
Sri I Y I?"--$A£}ASH}'J;?...REDEEY; Aw. FOR R6)

THIS Wm" .If-7E'I'i*~;fIcIII' IS FILED UNDER ESRTICLES
226 6:'; 227 OF"'1'_HE (3ef)NS'I'I'I'U'I'ION GE?' INDIA WITH A

  _ TO QUAS'H 'THE IMPUGNED ORDER
 BfF.3_().1},.'2CQ6«,,_._ PASSED BY THE R2, HEREIN IN LRF
'-VORDERA "v..4I3'§'_§3f9.'-2007 PASSED BY THE KRNATAKA

R'EVE_NU'E f*--APP1:I;LAT§ TRIBUNAL IN' APPELA 1431/()6,
\r:I:;.E ANN--I:i~.ff_ 

WRIT PETITION COMING OR FOR PRELIMINARY

5f'--._'HEARIN<I»...I'N 'B'--GR(}Ui3' THIS DAY, THE CO¥JR'I' MADE THE
 4 ..jI2r."):..'LI:I§vINI3;-

ORDER

The petitioner has challenged the order passeé by A. the Assistant Commissioner, Doddabaliapur Sub» I .. 3 _ Division in LRF(DBP)N€.>.586/98-1999 and connected matters wherein the Assistant Commissioner has rejected the claim made by the tenant.

2. The petitioner submits that he was ~ respect of the {and measuring 1 acre in of 'A V' Madagondanahaili, Madure Hobli, W and filed Form No.7-AV» --..::bsfors." .__t.i1s Atssistaixt Commissioner, Doddabgilaptzr S1tbaDivisior, gant of occupancy rights; ;'_1'hé~.£§ssistatr1t.:ComHﬁssioner, by its 34.2006 has rejected his spplicatjori; f;_'.'1t1<=; ;§et_ifio1:sr..»sst1bmitteci that the said order _ is to be xsstismsido since it suifers from iI1ﬁrn}.ity .. 'A§71'1ﬁ: 3¥.!I}p1Ig11ed order is also a nowspealiing ord;s'r;.r'Ths7$.~.ssista1}t Commissioner has not aver; any 'vVI'€aS{3J44§T1..f€}a rs}ect the Cass of the mtitioner and not the evidence and statements of the parties etc. éstemal page 2 of the order the Assistant VCommissioner has stated that on" the basis of the rscords available by furnislﬁng 5 reasons, he has 'K rejected the case, which are not suﬁicient £0 :'e°i*:<":'t._ claim.

3. Against the order paseeci" e-by 2 'V Commissioner, the petitioner pF6f€fTc':f1._eii'1 appeal befﬁirevivi * the Appellate Tribunal in 1;43i:i¢1::§:3;:2izee, which aiso came to 3.é;2ee'§. The Tribunal has formmatee the same against page 9, the Tribunal haeiasi--Sigiieﬁ rejecting the case. In iI1te:;i1al*.pagV§e'V=?:- order, the Tribunal has referred thuat_4"A.seistént" Cizmmissioner in the impugled . prde: ti7;a;i;__£i}e appellant is not in possession Vﬂef ltv}L"13V(5i.§§p~',1'»'U_:"V,&€ﬁi' land as tenant as on 1.3.1974" and on jf-5 the Tribunal has rejected the ease of {he Hence, it is submitted by the learned that the orignai order passed by the Assistant ' .___"""C0'mmissioner is eontravenﬁon of provision ef the .,1=i{arnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 the Rules thereunder.

5. The learned Government Pleacler s11ppo1*tedT"i:he impugned order of the Assistant Commissioners.eJ1t;i.:é;'i-S0?"

the Appellate Tribunal. He further sub:nitted~«.:ti1:_;t~ _ burden is on the appeilant to possession and cuiﬁvation of the as on? :1. 'cm the date of ﬁling application} the the petitioner has not to tliat eﬂect. Hence, he submitted to

6. I have:..h«=z:_1Ifd the arguments V' (if"V§iea1'ned counsel on

7. 'i'I:xeiea;';'1. t 'ed fer the petitioner submitted V that sAssisf.zznt "C0:n.missioner's order suffers from contravention to provision of Rule Reforms Rules (for short the Rules') V . r/xv 334 we Land Revenue Act (for short the 'Act'). it it Sectéqn of the Act reads thus, "34. summary inquhty -- When a summaly inquiry is prescribed for detemiination of any question by order under this Act or any law for the time in fopcegthé oﬁicer condu(:t'1I1g such --. .;. shall himsalf, as such inqmiy % record in his own hand, iI;"i{a1L1:--_jsxf.a f.'}1'_'t i:b'.1_ V L"

English or in any other 1ang'ia;§€.'_Of ' or village as declared bj_z'4--S:até' '(';V'o1*cn;=u¢ie;j.1t; the summary of the a of the pmceedings~~..

averment: made the decision and the fo:(f"LtheV'se;i:{§e"

8. that the authority who g_cfA_S',ection 34 of the Act shali have to reri:or.r:'x the" ¢~'.ﬁde;i¢e and he has to inquire 'with I'f"3v'If*é31%f'.:IV"'1Cf3V:*EZO the records available and the ?e,v:;L;"ieI;ce and Minutes of the proceedings also the instant case, from Armexure-«A I V dc; fxxdtz égiywhere as to whether he recorded the V' :e.vidé::z1éCe éf the parties. Secondiy it does not reveal as to the dacuments and ﬁles referred. In View af . V " above Sections, it is clear that an authority has to record a simary evidenﬁ adduced by Eithﬁli' of the parties. In the instant case, the Assistant Commissioner has not compiied with the requiremeiflfof Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act. A' impugned order Annexure«-A on the face of. V' " h law. Hence it requires to be set:=;_asideéazid *asi_£1c::s Azmexure---J Without any hesiiation. A.

9. With regard' "to the Appellate Tribunal, the for the respoiicieiﬁt.' "hthough there is no sufﬁcierﬁi-reasons AnneXure~--A, the Tribunal has pzfovide¢i'~'s}iﬁieie1ﬁ: fessons. The said argument is \u1{'i0"f.:'v £31' "" "the reason that the Assistant is the orignal authority shotlid pass an order .ir),_9g<:eordance with law. if it ie not done, then ".__VL"1e T Agipeilate authority or the reviewing authority A he-'--1o13;g'I.5i they provide sufﬁcient reasons that is not as '11' rzozhpliance of Section 34 of the Act. The order of the VA ' "VVAppe11ate Tribunal is also had in law for the reason that they rely on the order made by the Assistam;

"\ _ 9 _ Commissioner. More $0, the Assistant Commissioeer has net recorded any evidence of the respective parties. Under these cireumsiances, it was not proper ferijvv Appellate Tribunal also to appreciate and ~ order passed by the Assis_t;ant._4 edmmaissicnia. Aecorciingly, the erder passed by 7f to be set aside.

10. In the light of the di.s;e§Lxssio;1s Ihziade aliéeve, it is eiariﬁed that while mfder specially on an Section 7'7--A by a tenant who fziee Jef occupancy rights, the authqififyea possible care to deal with such V' dealing with such matters, they shoukd feﬁeiaeﬁheiiiaw Rule 26(C) of the Ruies and Sectiezl .434 ef Bet, which are mandatery provisions. The 'V '' auiheyities are not permitted te deviate from such

--f.':mAa;1da¥.:o1y previsiens. The Assistant Commissioner is "c.iiif'ee¥,ed :0 pass appropriate order stﬁctly in accordance with Rule 26(0) of the Land Referms Rules r/W Section "T "19- 34 of the Land Revenue Act, Within a "

months from the date of receipt of copy All the contenﬁons of the parties afe " 'V 1 1. The petition is dispi§a{:fi§..Vpf a£:cQrdi;ig1yL':..;V"' RS/*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court