N. PADMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is knocking at the doors of writ court for assailing the Special Deputy Commissioner order dtd. 24/6/2016 made u/s.136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (Annexure-H) whereby a direction has been issued to delete the name of the petitioner from the Revenue Records in respect of the land in question and to enter the name of Government free from all encumbrances in that stead. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that this order has been made without due service of notice and petitioner had no knowledge of the proceedings and therefore the same is liable to be voided on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. He also draws attention of the court to the Sale Deed dtd. 29/1/1999 wherein petitioner's vendor had obtained title to the subject property from the original grantee namely sons of Muniswamaiah S/o Pillappa and to the Sale Deed dated 20.10.20003 under which the petitioner bought the subject land. He argues that if this material was looked into, the impugned order could not have been passed.

(2.) Learned AGA appearing for the official respondents oppose the petition contending that there are registered sale deeds is true, however dispute essentially relates to the title to the property which the petitioner has to work out his remedy in a properly constituted suit also making the Government a party thereto. Alternatively he submits the petitioner can be relegated to special court established under the Land Revenue Act. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as apparently the petitioner has got some registered instruments which given the opportunity would have been pressed into service for consideration of the Special Deputy Commissioner. The denial of opportunity of hearing is a serious matter when the principles of natural justice are treated by the Apex Court as being part of Article 14 of the Constitution in a catena of decisions, as rightly and vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner.