RAMAKKA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioners is that their father purchased the property 2 acres 35 guntas of land in Sy.No.64/P70 of Boothanahalli Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru in the year 1980 and have been in possession of the property since then. It is submitted that the said land was originally granted in favour of one Venkataswamy in the year 1960 and he sold it to one Thimmakka from whom the father of the petitioners purchased the property. It is further submitted that the revenue records also reflect the said transactions. When this was the situation, respondent No.2 without any reason initiated an enquiry whether the original grant was valid or not. As the father of the petitioners was dead and the name of mother of the petitioners was reflected in the revenue entries, she was made as a respondent in the proceedings before respondent No.2. However, no notice was served on her and an ex-parte order was passed holding that there was no valid grant and the name of the mother of the petitioners was removed from the revenue records. Aggrieved by the same, the instant writ petition is filed.

(2.) Learned HCGP appearing for the respondents upon instructions submits that as notice could not be served on the mother of the petitioners, the same was served on the land itself. He does not dispute the fact that the mother of the petitioners was not served with the notice.

(3.) Further in the course of the arguments, the petitioners submit that the mother of the petitioners has died subsequently and hence, they have preferred the instant writ petition.