High Court Karnataka High Court

L Ramachandra vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
L Ramachandra vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 September, 2010
Author: A.S.Pachhapure
E W P 2i..5t*'>28,f E0

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
BATEB THIS THE 215" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 20

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR.JUS'I'ICE A.s.PACHI1_Aéfii1§fiE.j'F:------   .

WRIT PETITION NO.23828/2_010' £KLR;R§i/'S1}R1V".. 
BETWEEN I "   4' ' V

1. L. Ramachandra,  .'
S/o. Late Lakshmaiah, . '
Aged about 65 years.

Occ: Agriculture, 

R/at Door No.43. '_  . _ '.,
13"' Cross, M.V. Lé5*ou.t.'-_ E, }
Virupakshapura, _  '
Bangalore «A560 097)' * 

2. L.     

Sfo. LzitefLakéh'1naiauh.

Ag_ed--_ab0utV80A.. ' -

Oct,---: Agric1:1t*u:1_'e,"23828/E0

Bangalore District,
Bangalore -- 560 001.

3. The Tahsi§dar,
Bangalore North Additional Taluk,
Yelahanka Upanagara,   
Bangalore -- 560 064.  rznspemnsjzxzra,/s

(By Sri. R. Om Kumar, AGA)

.~;<2a§=>'a _;   . H '  
This Writ Petition is filed uAnderT&rticle."226vv0f the
Constitution of India praying to set aside the o1jder'__d'a_.tVed.

22.01.2010 passed by the Vsecond"Responds-ntv whi§;h"is",
produced as Annexure-E along with the w,Ifit~,_p"etit'ion and"

further be pleased to drop the'proceedingsViinitiated under
Section 136(3) of the Karnatalga.Land=Revenue_Ac.t.

This Writ Petition'"coming§oi1  Ffreliminary Hearing
in 'B' Group, this day, the Courti made  following:

Tl1Vei"fietitvi.0ni'is'fi:led"ehaiienging the order passed by
the E7$l3ecVia1:   Cernrnissiener, in

Rm'/2_/NA/CR/200./2008409 dt.22.1.2{)10 directing to

 ..de1e..t_e'~t};.e name 0fvthe"petitione.r fr-em the revenue records

ii'-,oi'.<the._lan:icil :be:a1*--ing S.No.98 measuring 4 acres situated at

Manchiappavnarlelosahalli, Jala fiobli. Bangalore North

'.Additio..nV1al Taluka and to continue the name of the

..:Govie':nment and free from all encumbrances.

i  It is the case of the petitioners that Petitioner

 515.1 purchased the land in question under registered sale

"ta. 0



3 K \\-"P 2I'i828/ i0

deed dt.1.7.1982. In the year 1987. Lakshrnaiah, the father
of the petitioners died and there was a partition between
his children and the names of the petitioners were entered
in the records. That being the fact, the Tahsiiaiaxiilorth
Additional Taluka submitted a report to the  
Commissioner stating that there are no it
forth coming in Taluka Office to s:1ppp'§r£" 
petitioners in the records  ther-ejforep  there
Special Deputy Commi'ssioner___4_txo»vdeleteihthieivlnariie of the
petitioners by initiatisigthe._nnder 136 (3) of
the Karnataka Land ReiteniieeAetpéiirhereinaifter called as 'the
Act' for sho_rif.:).'   Lbepiity""bommissioner has
passed the.' directing to delete the names
of the  by the said order, the

prese:-3_'1t"petitioln been filed.
  have "heard the learned counsel for the

 AGA for the respondents.

records of the case before the Special

iii”<.,_"¥.)eputy" Commissioner are made available. The perusal of

"«theire1_<:ords reveal that no notice has been served to the

miiipeitpiitioners at any time. There are no acknowledgements or

4- \='»="P 2i$828_/ ll)

any endorsements regarding service of notice to the
petitioners. The Revenue Inspector has rI:ade_ an

endorsement having served the notice and no sgigriaturlesvlnf

the petitioners have been taken. In the circarnstanvcelsi; V'

cannot be said that the petitionicrsh W'ere"..'sez"!_t:'dl«_With*the

notice. Though there is some undlertaking tiyran. adVv:ocaVte_VV

to appear in the case for the Vp'e:ti't.ione.rs;__ the
also not available in the records."and-»_unlesls"thafi{;otice is
served to the petitioners.'Aaizyii»undevrtalting given by an
advocate cannot" he name of the
advocate or__ ohltained on the order
sheet for for the parties. 80
the per1__1sal–oflttheii'ord~¢§'v…reqr¢als that it is against the

principles of rlatura1"jus..ti'ee.'

iiiitvhe-«"petition is allowed. The order

RRT/2/NA./CR/206/2008-09 passed by

the.."'Specialfj_ iibieputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural

'iVDistrict., :*i.e.V, Respondent No.2 is quashed. The matter is

:i"en1itt.ed hack to the Special Deputy Commissioner with a

._,i.'.-dill:-'ectlion to issue notice to the petitioners and thereafter

_f°

\\="P 23828/' 30

Q1

dispose of the case in accordance with law. The Petition is

accordingly disposed of.

Learned AGA is permitted to file Memo

within fifteen days.

JL