KASHYAP PATEL Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SHRI MUNISWAMY AND SHRI D. VENKATASWAMY REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER 's father Sri. Naginbhai Patel, purchased the subject land on 07.03.2003 from Sri. D. Venkataswamy Reddy i.e., the 4th respondent. 3rd respondent filed a petition before the 2nd respondent invoking the provision of Karnataka Act 2 of 1979 to annul the sale transaction in favour of Naginbhai Patel and all other earlier sale transactions and to restore the possession of the subject land by alleging that it was a granted land and a transfer has taken place in violation of the terms of the grant. Statement of objections was filed by Naginbhai Patel. The 2nd respondent despite noticing on 08.10.2007 that Naginbhai Patel, impleaded as respondent No. 2 in the matter having dead, though directed the LRs. be brought on record without notice to the LRs of Naginbhai Patel, has decided the matter on 30.11.2007. The sale transaction in favour of the 4th respondent -D. Venkataswamy Reddy was declared as null and void and consequently, the sale transaction by the 4th respondent in favour of Naginbhai Patel also stood declared as null and void. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 5 -A of the Act before the first respondent. Though a contention was raised that the LRs of Naginbhai Patel were not brought on record and the proceedings are vitiated, inasmuch as the order was passed against a dead person, the 2nd respondent by merely observing that the Assistant Commissioner has offered sufficient opportunity to both parties, without recording any finding whether the impugned order is vitiated on account of not granting an opportunity of hearing to the LRs of deceased Naginbhai Patel dismissed the appeal on 29.05.2009 vide Annexure -A. This writ petition is directed against the orders passed by respondents 1 and 2, as at Annexures -A and B.

(2.) HEARD the learned advocates on both sides and perused the record. It is unnecessary to notice the rival contentions and record findings since the impugned orders are vitiated and are unsustainable for not granting opportunity of hearing to the LRs of Naginbhai Patel. Learned Advocate appearing for the 3rd respondent conceded the fact that the LRs of Naginbhai Patel were not brought on record after the order dated 08.10.2007 was passed by the Assistant Commissioner 2nd respondent. Though the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent, as at Annexure -B shows the names of LRs of Naginbhai Patel in the cause title, there is no dispute that the LRs of Naginbhai Patel were not issued with any notice and were not granted an opportunity of hearing i.e., either to file statement of objections, if any and to participate in the proceedings. The order passed by the 2nd respondent, as at Annexure -B is bad, illegal and vitiated, since it is passed against a dead person - Naginbhai Patel. Though a contention to the said effect was raised in the appeal filed before the first respondent, Appellate Authority has not adverted to the contention and decided the matter in accordance with law. In the circumstances, the impugned orders being vitiated are unsustainable. In the result, writ petition is allowed and the orders passed by the first and second respondents, as at Annexures - A and B are quashed. The matter stands remanded to the 2nd respondent for consideration and decision afresh in accordance with law. The petitioner and the other two LRs of Naginbhai Patel be treated as the LRs of deceased Naginbhai Patel. Both the parties are directed to appear before the 2nd respondent on 12.07.2013 and receive further orders. It is open to the petitioner and the other LRs of deceased Naginbhai Patel to file additional statement of objections, if any, to the claim made by the 3rd respondent, within a period of four weeks from today. The 2nd respondent is directed to decide the matter expeditiously and before 31.12.2013. No costs.