MUNIREDDY SINCE DECEASED BY LRS SMT. NAGAVENAMMA W/O LATE MUNIREDDY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY REVENUE SECRETARY MULTI STORIED BUILDING VIDHANA VIDHI, BANGALORE AND SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is seeking for quashing of order dated 18.10.2011 passed by second respondent in RRT/(2)N (A)/C.R./72/2010 -11, whereunder second respondent exercising suomoto powers under Sub Section (3) of Section 136 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short) has ordered for deleting the name of petitioner from the revenue records. Heard Sri. V. Sreenivasa, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri. Jagadeesh Mundaragi, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents. Perused the records.

(2.) ON a report submitted by the Tahsildar (Bangalore North (Additional) Taluk), on 12.12.2008 that land bearing Survey No. 50/26 measuring 4 acres is originally Government land and doubting correctness of the revenue entries requested second respondent to enquire into the matter. As such suomoto proceedings was initiated against petitioner since name of the petitioner was found in revenue records and notice came to be issued. Petitioner though appeared through his learned Advocate before second respondent failed to file Statement of Objections and failed to produce records as called for by second respondent.

(3.) IT is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that on account of ill -health of petitioner records could not be furnished to the counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner before second respondent and as such records were not produced. He submits that records produced along with the writ petition at Annexure -A to E would clearly establish that petitioner is the owner of the land in question and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is contended that in view of the same impugned order be quashed or in the alternative an opportunity be afforded to the petitioner to place these documents before second respondent by setting aside the same and remanding the matter to second respondent for adjudication afresh. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction would not be able to examine the correctness or otherwise of the records produced as also the authenticity of the document of title. As such this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met if petitioner is permitted to produce these records and any other records available with them before the second respondent in order to establish that petitioner is having title to the property in question and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. Second respondent shall examine the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law after examining the records that may be produced by the petitioner. Since petitioner did not have an opportunity to place all these materials before the second respondent, matter deserves to be remitted to second respondent for adjudication on merits and afresh. It is also required to be noticed that petitioner has not been diligent in prosecuting the claim before second respondent inspite of notice having been issued by the second respondent and having engaged a learned Advocate to appear on his behalf petitioner has not been diligent in conducting the matter as expected of a vigilant litigant. In view of the said fact petitioner deserves to be mulcated with costs so that respondents would be compensated for expending time and money and also on the ground that petitioner should be diligent henceforth in prosecuting the claim before second respondent.