AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.
In Writ Petition No. 12991/2010:
Writ petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the proceedings initiated by the Asst. Commissioner, Chikkamagalur Sub-Division, Chikkamagalur, in terms of a show-cause notice dated 6.3.2010 (Copy produced at Annexure H) for taking action in respect of Darkast grant that had been made in favour of the father of the petitioner-Janardhana Acharya granting an extent of 2 acres of land in Sy. No. 19 of Addada village, Koppa Taluk, for the reason that the grantee was not in possession and enjoyment of the subject granted land, the Tahsildar, Koppa Taluk, had made a recommendation for cancellation of the grant. In response to this show-cause notice writ petitioner, who claims to be one of the sons of Janardhana Acharya had appeared before the Asst. Commissioner, as by that time Janardhana Acharya had expired and had pleaded that he had been forcibly dispossessed by K.G. Ramesha, the brother of the 3rd respondent and in the civil suit instituted by the father of the petitioner, possession has now been restored to the brother of the petitioner and therefore, he is now in possession. In that view of the matter proceedings are required to be dropped. It was also objected to the conduct of proceedings and the show-cause notice; that the present proceedings which are based on an earlier report of the Tahsildar, way back in the year 10.2.1987 had come to be diluted in the wake of the order dated 21.7.1987 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in No. KDR. 1.86.87 a proceedings under the provisions of Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1980 and wherein the writ petitioner''s father had questioned in turn the order of the Tahsildar holding him not a debtor within the meaning of this Act and depriving the benefits of this Act and the appeal of the petitioner''s father having been allowed by the Deputy Commissioner, the matter was remanded to the Tahsildar, but no action having been taken by the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar having virtually abandoned the proceedings, no further action was initiated on an earlier report of the Tahsildar and therefore, matter should be dropped etc. However, the Asst. Commissioner proceeding with the initiation of notice and having called for a spot inspection report from the Tahsildar, the present writ petition is filed questioning the legality of the proceedings before the Asst. Commissioner and seeking for quashing of all further proceedings such as show-cause notice and also the spot inspection report dated 22.02.2010.
Notice had been issued to the respondents and respondent Nos. 1 and 2-the Asst. Commissioner and the Tahsildar are represented by Smt. S. Susheela, learned AGA. Respondent No. 3 is represented by Mr. Keshava Bhat, learned counsel.
Respondent No. 3 has also filed statement of objections. It is asserted in the statement of objections that the writ petitioner''s father had by misrepresentation obtained the grant in his favour claiming that he is a person belonging to scheduled caste community, while he was not one such, but he belonged to some other community and as such he was not entitled for grant and therefore, the proceedings should be taken to its logical conclusion and should not be aborted mid-way.
On the other hand, Mr. Ajith A. Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the proceedings initiated by the Asst. Commissioner has no legs to stand that it is a stale matter and particularly, whether initiation is sought to be brought back to life only because the 3rd respondent suffers adverse orders in other proceedings particularly, for recovery of possession of the land of the 3rd respondent by forcibly dispossessing the petitioner''s father from the subject land of two acres and petitioner''s father had initiated a suit for declaration and recovery of possession before the Civil Court. The suit has been decreed and attained finality in RSA. No. 3413/2006 before this court as per the judgment dated 13.4.2007 and the second appeal at the instance of the 3rd respondent''s brother having come to be dismissed affirmed the judgment and decree granted by the trial court and also had come to be affirmed in appeal by the first appellate court; that the Asst. Commissioner should take note of this development before proceeding further in the present proceedings and the petitioner''s preliminary objection to the present petition and therefore, the Asst. Commissioner may examine it as a preliminary objection etc.
Smt. S. Susheela, learned AGA appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that Annexure-H is a show-cause notice dated 6.3.2010 issued, to give an opportunity to the petitioner and it is open to the petitioner to raise such contention as are available to him before the Asst. Commissioner.
The proceedings before the Asst. Commissioner in respect of Land Grant Rules is not an elaborate proceeding as contemplated in a trial before the Civil Court. It is essentially in the nature of summary proceedings. In a matter of this nature, what all objections the petitioner has, can be raised and it is necessary that the authority passes an order showing awareness to the objections raised. In this writ petition it is not necessary to interfere with the impugned order. It is not necessary for this court to go into the so called objections, which the petitioner wants to raise and because of such proceedings are sought to be quashed, while it is open to the petitioner to urge all such contentions as are available to him before the authorities, the authorities to examine and pass orders in accordance with law, particularly, examination being one to cancel the grant and depending on what reasons and as to what explanation or defence the writ petitioner seeks to raise before the Asst. Commissioner and to pass orders.
All contentions are left open. It is for the authorities to consider the objections urged by the writ petitioner before the Asst. Commissioner. Interim order is vacated and writ petition is dismissed.
In Writ Petition No. 20470/2011:
This writ petition is by another son of late Janardhana Acharya and is also directed against the proceedings initiated by the Asst. Commissioner, Chickmagalur, as per Annexure K show-cause notice dated 29.4.2011 and proceedings at the behest of one Smt. Lakshmamma W/o. Govindaiah mother of K.G. Seetharam-the 3rd respondent in the above disposed of W.P. No. 12991/2010.
Submission of Mr. Ajith A Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in this petition seeking for similar relief as in the other writ petition is in addition to the contentions urged in the W.P. No. 12991/2010 on behalf of the petitioner. It is to be noticed on facts in this petition the proceedings initiated by the 3rd respondent''s mother is nothing short of abuse of process of law; that as the 3rd respondent''s son could not make much headway in the proceedings initiated by him before the Asst. Commissioner as this proceedings had come to be stayed in W.P. No. 12991/2010 or further appeal. Yet another proceeding had been initiated, which is virtually misuse and abuse of process of law.
Notice had been issued to the respondents and respondent No. 3 is represented by Mr. A. Keshava Bhat.
Mr. A. Keshava Bhat, learned counsel submits that the facts and situation urged in this petition being identical to that in W.P. No. 12991/2010, no separate orders are necessary in this petition.
Mr. Ajith A Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the wake of the orders already passed in W.P. No. 12991/2010 while the petitioner cannot seek for a different order as the facts and situation are all in fact identical and also in respect of the very grant of two acres of land, however, requests that a direction be issued to club the two matters together and dispose of.
This writ petition is also dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to urge all contentions which are left open before the Asst. Commissioner and the Asst. Commissioner to consider the same and pass orders. However, it is made clear that the subject matter of the two proceedings initiated by the Tahsildar in the show-cause notice copy produced as Annexure K dated 29.4.2011 are one and the same. It is only proper that both the matters are taken up together by the Asst. Commissioner and pass a common order. This petition is accordingly disposed of.