.1-
III THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED rms THE 23R" DAY 01? ocmnnn 2$£i 3j : '
PREBEHT
mm Howsnm MR. rm. nImKA3;Afi;'c:§13s_F -J:§ s"?z+i;:,V'a{'
"'9 >
THE I-Ioimm Mn.JusTI:§'E--%v.e§"s.an' ' ,{I;'f* S
WRIT APPE_.2}___L No. 1.009 q.£29"i__3s' EKLR-RR-fig)':
BETWEEN :
1 THE STATE G'Fl}§'§-RNATAa?{"*":
A
M.s.E:ijt£b'ITi~:'};::r, _ _
BANGAAL(3RE,~0'1Jf-._ = , 'V
2 THE spficgzu. vDEPi3'i'Y»- §it;:i§a}.a1Ss1oz~é,§*.R
BANGALORE URBAN 'DISTRICT
BAEGALORE " = V
'3 'V ' Aééi§rANT COMMISSIONER
:8ANqAz,0RE.Vs0uTH SUB DIVISION
B2«;:;GA1,..<2 R_EV ---"
THE TAH'S§A§§i§AR
BANGALORE
(5§,% Sig. {)3 VEERAPPA, AGA )
EANGALORIE} SOUTH TALUK
APPELLANTS
KAMAKSHAMMA
W10 VERAMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
DODDANAGAMANGALA vn,LAGE1_
BEGUR EOBLI, BANGALORE
A V RAMACHANDRAN
S/O CHENGALRAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
N.YEDDAHALLI VILLAGE.
MULBAGAL TALUK ~ 1. '-
KOLAR D§S'FRIC'I'
VANANDAPRA' ._ =: ~~
S/O vENKATARAMA1AH_
AGED ABC*UT_.-<39 YBARSQ " . 7'
PADMAGHATTP. 1¥:VLLA.G'P3_ "
MLBAGAL TALUK ":1; "
Komié'
VMUNIREDf)Y .
s/ Q; VENKATASWAMYV REDDY
* _ AGES ALBDMUT 45 YEARS,
' GQv:N1;msHE'rTY PALYA
_ ::3E;_Gv1TJIe1v.;j0Big£,"«BANGALORE
S.SHca§12{L?RéiN:
w/'9 s,.;sunARsHAN REDDY
AGED. ABOUT 33 YEARS,
SWATHE NILAYA
" ~ i'§E'1'§iRAVATHI LAYOUT
=.;<:.~R..r=URAM, BANGALORE
V. _ E§HANTfiAMMA
W/O K.Y.RAMASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
N035, YELLAMMA TEMPLE
10
STREET, MADIWALA
BANGALORE
K PUSHPA
w/O ANTHONY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
NO. 13, INFANTOS HOUSE
TAVAREKERE, BANGALORE
YERRISWAMY
S/O BALAHIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
No.9, BALAJINAGAR
SUDGUNTE PALYA " 'O O
BANGALORE SOUTH " T
UTTARA
W/O CHO_WRAP?A_'.'. ' 1 .
AGED ABCEUT:-#3 YEARS-,.'.'j
No.5, O1j;N'M.A3'z'Og_A P'ALYA "
BANGALORE V V'
SARGJA "
w/ O. ;)HA1si;u?AL...REI3vD?"' "
AGED A8OUT'4V:2,YEA;2s,
' . NO..1, ESLARAYANA REQDY GARDEN
. R1} PENA. AGRAHARA, VIRATNAGAR
BOn12\{i9..1§mHAL';:, BANGALORE
§.ri1; r&:1s\s(AV}§¥fiV
S/O SI~If\IGARA REDDY
AGEO ABOUT 34 YEARS,
'' V. .NO..768; BASAPPA LAYOUT
SOMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE
RESPONDENTS
[j13y..s;i; KESI-{ORE Sf~§EfI”I’Y, ADV. FOR R1-11)
-4-
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED [US 4 OF THE KAR1$Z1″!{I’Ai{A
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASiDE THE ORDER..F*ASS_EB
IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.2()518[OS DATED 27/2/2Q(_Y?f
THIS wan’ APPEAL comma UP FOR éfzEL:is&ImSiY
HEARING ON THIS BAY, THE cogm’ D–ELI-VERED
F€)LLOWING:–
JUDGM§B!!___’_lj
(Delivered by og-3 M
This writ appeal is the order of the
learned Single Jugigfié datcqd in writ petition
No.20518/2085. and restoring the
canceflafioif of ‘1’exVr’éi’i’L1¢’o’ pertaining to the writ
petitionors. V’
T. to the writ petitioners, the land
“‘A-~Vw;z:1eas1.j.1″i_;:4:”ig in Sy.No.11/2 of Doddanagamangala
fa-.vri.1__1 a1ge, Be?g1V;_§~}+Iob1i, Bangalore South Taluk, was purchased
{‘–‘-V.xb3.fVoff;e Iviuniswamy Roddy from the Government of Mysore
the year 1950 on an upset price of 125.20/~ per acre
the sake consideration was deposited on 7.9.1950 under
RR No.13/1972 and the Amiidar of Bangalore Sout1″ii’Ta1uk
executed a Sale deed in favour of said on
22.9.1950. Thereafter, one T
Muniswemy Reddy, med the ereeeee:eep’reperty% te
writ petifioner under a registered. 4_’gift’d.eed dateiei;
It is the case of the writ petitiorieréi’ that the_VV:f1r5’stV’jzoetitioner
was enjoying the same _ formed a layout
and sold the sites toeother ‘petitioners-2 to
11.
2.2. iiflowifeizerg Deputy Commissioner
initiated pijoceetiiiigs _i’1-1 CR 32/ 2000-2001 against 13
neme and others in respect of Sy.Nos. 10
aroii village and canceiled the revenue
‘ eintfriesi of their names contending that the
~ jcieeutiiente eeiied upon by them are fake documents and by
‘dated 2.2.2005 directed the Tahsildar to cancel the
“ieji1?Jfie_e standing in the name of writ petitioners. Accordingly
Vii”–«ueiVii11″Vjptu*suance of the direction issued by the Special Deputy
Commissioner the Tahsiidar cancelled the revenue~–entr_ies__in
respect of petitioners’ property.
2.3. Being aggrieved by the
preferred the writ petition. The order’ ‘
dated 27.22.2007 aiiowed vthze and”‘qua’ished the
order passed by the dated
2.2.2005 and the dated 26.7.2005
in so far as it of the Petitioners,
against by the State.
3. Itis T-ofapmllants that the impugxed
is wfithoi.it”‘iiea1’ing them and as such, the same
is ‘pas.-;-xiii’ fiieiejtion of principles of natural justice.
i””-ficcordnagré sppeflants, the writ petitioners cannot get
~ and over the properties basing on the revenue
V if at ail they have got any right, title and interest
property, they have to establish the same by
‘*-«V.AVo’b’t’sVi11ing a decree in respect of the same before a competent
Civil Court and then only, they can approach thej”reven§1e
authorities for change of entries.
4. Heard the learned
for the appellants and the leaxiietjieounhsel the”
respondents.
5. We have «egiven Lou: Veonsideration to the
submissions peoixnsel for the parties.
6. The oatxdereeogfdddiscloses that the petitioners
are not, to” m§ pn5ceedmgs in RRT (2) CR32/2{}00~
Special Deputy Commissioner. When that
considered view, the Tahsildar ought to
hasfe hopportuxlity of hearing to the writ petitioners
,: =.hefo1″e ‘dc’a;f1ceHiJ1g.the revenue entries in respect of their
If at all, the Tahsildar wanted to cancel the entries
to the order passed by the Special Deputy
fiilommissioner on 2.2.2005, the only course that was open to’
fmeex; Yeéj No
3.
the Tahsildar Was to issue notice to Writ petitioners;._.l_ii_ear
them and then pass necessary orders. In the
notice and an opportunity of hearing ,_givenWto’
proceedings initiated against one
RR’I'{2) CR 32/2oo0–20o 1, tliei./.:’,3%E.1t11orities~{:eve_r;..the:”dis.’nissa1 of this appeal will not
come in the ‘wayof in proceeding against the
petitioners aeeoi’d_e.nee with law, if found necessary.
it the writ appeal is disposed of.
5d/-
Chief Justice
Sd/-f_
Judge
/.
K