BYRAMMA Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Fakrulla Khan, Party-in-person appearing on behalf of petitioner as GPA Holder and Sri Jagadeesh Mundaragi, learned Additional Government Advocate. Petitioner has questioned the order passed by first respondent dated 23-3-2009 whereunder it has been held that name of the petitioner in the revenue records is to be deleted in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 40/P23 measuring 4 acres situated at Bandikodigehalli, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, on the ground that entries in revenue records is unauthorised entry without there being any valid grant Order passed by Competent Authority.

(2.) A perusal of impugned order dated 23-3-2009 Annexure-A would go to show that there is violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as no notice served on the respondent before impugned order was passed and it has been served on one Sri Lakshmaiah, who is son of petitioner herein. As to whether the said Sri Lakshmaiah was authorised to receive notice on behalf of Smt. Byramma or not, no material is placed by the respondents. In the absence of such authorisation given by petitioner it cannot be held that there was due service of notice on the petitioner. The mandate of Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 is that no order shall be passed by the Deputy Commissioner without affording reasonable opportunity to the person against whom such an order is being passed which means principles of natural justice has to be complied in true spirit. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that there is violation of principles of natural justice in the instant case by 1st respondent namely no notice is served on the petitioner in the proceedings initiated by first respondent under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. In these circumstances this Court is of the considered view that petitioner has to be afforded an opportunity to enable her to demonstrate as how the land in question came to be granted to her by a Competent Authority. Hence, impugned order at Annexure-A, dated 23-3-2009 is hereby quashed. Matter is remitted back to respondent-Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore by permitting him to hold enquiry afresh and in accordance with law. Petitioner would be at liberty to produce all such records before first respondent to establish or substantiate her claim over the land in question and she is also at liberty to address further arguments without seeking for further grant of time. In view of the fact that petitioner has appeared before this Court it would suffice if petitioner is directed to be present before Special Deputy Commissioner on 16-4-2012 without waiting for any further notice being issued by first respondent. First respondent after considering the documents and arguments that may be produced and advanced by petitioner, shall pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within an outer limit of three months from 16-4-2012. It is also made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits/demerits of the matter. Accordingly petition stands disposed of.