MARADI SANNAKANIMAVVA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The Writ Petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 s. 192(3)
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Having considered the material on record and rival submissions, this Court finds that the issue is no longer a res integra. In WP No.60582/2012, this Court had specifically set aside the mutation entry and directed respondent No.4 to consider the matter afresh after granting…
Judgment
(BY SMT. V.VIDYA IYER, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MANJANNA E MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH &PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:391 WP No. 105510 of 2014 HC-KAR M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE, R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELLARY DISTRICT, BELLARY.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER REVENUE SUB DIVISION, HOSPET.
TAHSILDAR HOSPET TALUK, HOSPET.
CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL HOSPET, R/BY ITS COMMISSIONER. (BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; NOTICE TO R5 IS SERVED) &RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE FOUND AT ANNEXURE-Z DATED 20.03.2014 IN NO.KUM/AKRA/35/2013-14 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 8B9 GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:391 WP No. 105510 of 2014 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER The petitioners have approached this Court calling in question the impugned notice dated 20.03.2014 [Annexure- Z] issued by the Tahsildar, Hospet Taluk/ respondent No.4 and seeking consequential reliefs.
2. Brief facts; The petitioners claim ownership and possession over the land bearing Sy.No.79/B measuring 62 cents, situated at Mudlapur village, Hospet Taluk. The said land originally belongs to their predecessor in interest, late Maradi Hosurappa, and the petitioner continued in possession after his demise.
3. On basis of a report submitted by the Revenue Inspector, a mutation entry came to be effected, deleting the name of late Maradi Hosurappa and entering the land as 8Government Land9, without issuing notice to the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner earlier approached this Court in WP No.60582/2012, wherein this Court by order - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:391 WP No. 105510 of 2014 HC-KAR dated 16.07.2012 [Annexure-Y], set aside the mutation on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and directed the Tahsildar to reconsider the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing.
4. While the said proceedings were still pending and without passing any final order as directed by this Court, the Tahsildar issued the impugned notice dated 20.03.2014 [Annexure-Z] invoking proceedings under Section 192(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [for short 8Act9] treating the petitioners as unauthorised occupants. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the issuance of the impugned notice is ex-facie illegal, being contrary and an indirect violation of the earlier order of this Court at Annexure-Y. It is submitted that without concluding the mutation proceedings as directed, the respondents could not have initiated eviction proceedings.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate seeks to justify the action of the Tahsildar. - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:391 WP No. 105510 of 2014 HC-KAR
This Court has carefully considered contentions urged and perused the material on record.
Operative part
Having considered the material on record and rival submissions, this Court finds that the issue is no longer a res integra. In WP No.60582/2012, this Court had specifically set aside the mutation entry and directed respondent No.4 to consider the matter afresh after granting opportunity to the petitioners. Admittedly, no final order has been passed in compliance with the said direction. In that view of the matter, issuance of the impugned notice at Annexure-Z initiating proceedings by treating the petitioners as an unauthorised occupant is premature, without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law. The action of respondent No.4 is clearly contrary to the directions issued this Court and cannot be permitted to stand. Accordingly, this Court pass the following; ORDER i) The Writ Petition is allowed. - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:391 WP No. 105510 of 2014 HC-KAR ii) The impugned notice
20.03.2014 at Annexure-Z is hereby quashed in terms of the order passed by this Court at Annexure-Y. iii) Respondent No.4/ Tahsildar, Hospete Taluk, is directed to conclude proceeding pursuant to Annexure-Y strictly in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of [3] three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. iv) All the contentions of the parties are kept open to be urged before competent authority. PJ/ Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72 Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The Writ Petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 — s. 192(3).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Karnataka High Court, on 16 Jul 2012. The bench was K S HEMALEKHA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.