AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.V. Nagarathna, J.—The order of the second respondent - Special Deputy Commissioner dated 30/11/2009 (Annexure "A") is assailed by the petitioner in this Writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that land bearing Sy. No. 10/P2 measuring 1 Acre at Sonnappanahalli village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North (Addl.) Taluk, was a gomal land and it was cultivated by his father late Gali Hanumaiah. By order dated 06/06/1978, the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, granted that land to the petitioner''s father. Annexure "B" is a copy of the official memorandum dated 19/09/1978, to that effect. The petitioner has further stated that his father died living behind the petitioner and two others and subsequent to the death of the petitioner''s father on 10/12/1993, the revenue entries were transferred in the name of the petitioner and others. It is the further case of the petitioner that one N. Ramesh had obtained General Power of Authority (GPA) from the petitioner and on the strength of that document, had sold the land in favour of his wife Kamini without the consent of the petitioner. That sale was assailed by the petitioner u/s 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter, referred to as the "PTCL Act"), before the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore Sub-division, Bangalore. By order dated 28/12/2007, the Assistant Commissioner set aside the sale made in favour of Smt. Kammi and ordered resumption and restoration of the land in favour of the petitioner. As the name of the respondent No. 3 was also found in the revenue records in respect of 1 Acre 10 Guntas of land, a direction was also issued in that regard. Thereafter, the mutation entries were once again made in favour of the petitioner. The order of the Assistant Commissioner passed under the PTCL Act was not challenged and has attained finality.
It is the case of the petitioner that subsequent to the said order and on restoration of the land, the petitioner has been in continuous possession of the same and that his name also finds a place in the RTC records for the year 2008-09. As far as the direction issued with regard to 1 Acre 10 Guntas of land in respect of respondent No. 3 - Chikkamuniyappa, is concerned, subsequently, mutation proceedings where held and his name also finds a place in the RTC records for the year 2008-09. Those mutation proceedings were taken up for revision by the respondent as against Chikkamuniyappa, by the impugned order dated 10/11/2009, wherein, the Tahsildar has been directed to delete the name of Chikkamuniyappa from the revenue records in respect of the land in Sy. No. 10/P2 measuring 1 Acre i.e., the aforesaid land and to treat it as Government land free from all encumbrances. Being aggrieved by the order of the respondent No. 2, this writ petition has been filed.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Govt. Pleader, who appears for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 3 is served and unrepresented.
The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the revision proceeding u/s 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 has been initiated by the respondent No. 2 without notice to the petitioner. That the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records as is evident from the RTC for the period 2008-09 onwards. But by virtue of the impugned order dated 30/11/2009, petitioner''s name has been deleted from the RTCs without giving him an opportunity of being heard. It is further contended that the impugned order is illegal and therefore, has to be quashed.
Per contra, learned Govt. Pleader appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 has supported the impugned order by contending that the land in question is a gomal land and therefore, it has rightly been held to be Government land, free from all encumbrances and that there is no infirmity in the order.
Keeping in mind the official memorandum dated 19/09/1978 wherein the petitioner''s father was granted 1 Acre of land in Sy. No. 10 and also proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of the PTCL Act and the fact that subsequently, petitioner''s name was mutated in the revenue records on the resumption of the land under that Act and the fact that petitioner''s name finds place in the RTC records, before reversing the mutation entries made in respect of the said land, the petitioner ought to have been heard by the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 has now directed the Tahsildar to delete the name of Chikkamuniyappa from the revenue records with the result that the name of the petitioner is also deleted from the said records without hearing the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and hence, it has to be quashed on this ground alone by remanding the matter to the second respondent for a fresh consideration in order to give an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case. Petitioner''s counsel states that the petitioner would appear before respondent No. 2 on 16/12/2013, without insisting on a fresh notice from the said authority. In the result, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30/11/2009 is quashed. The matter is remanded to the second respondent for a fresh consideration in order to give an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case. The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent No. 2 on 16-12-2013. The respondent No. 2 shall dispose of the revision petition in accordance with law and after giving the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard.