Narayanamma and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Narayanamma and ors. vs State of Karnataka and ors.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Karnataka Decided Sep 28, 2006

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/844681

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/844681
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: V.G. Sabhahit, J.
Decided On: Sep 28, 2006
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 37661 of 2004
Subject: Property
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 [K.A. No. 12/2006]. Section 136 (2) r/w Section 25; [V.G. Sabhahit, J] Cancellation of grant Powers of Assistant Commissioner Order passed against the dead persons/original grantees Appeal by Legal Representatives of dead persons to Deputy Commissioner Deputy Commissioner conf...

Key legal issue: Property
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed
Acts & sections: Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Sections 25 and 136(2)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Narayanamma and ors.

Advocate C.B. Srinivasan, Sr. Adv.

Respondent

State of Karnataka and ors.

Advocate R. Kumar, Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4

Legal References

Acts: Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Sections 25 and 136(2)
Reported In: ILR2006(4)KarSN30; 2007(1)KarLJ396

Excerpt

- karnataka land revenue act, 1964 [k.a. no. 12/2006]. section 136 (2) r/w section 25; [v.g. sabhahit, j] cancellation of grant powers of assistant commissioner order passed against the dead persons/original grantees appeal by legal representatives of dead persons to deputy commissioner deputy commissioner confirming cancellation of grant challenge as to held, orders passed by the revenue authorities is unsustainable. direction given to assistant commissioner to permit the legal representatives of dead persons who are original grantees to come on record and dispose of the case in accordance with law.....by the deputy commissioner, bangalore district dated 26-4-2004, confirming the order passed by the assistant commissioner, bangalore south sub-division, bangalore, dated 26-4-2003, wherein, the assistant commissioner in exercise of his power under section 136(2) read with section 25 of the karnataka land revenue act, 1964 has cancelled the grant made in favour of respondents 1 to 4 before him.2. it is the contention of the petitioners that respondents 1 to 4 before the assistant commissioner had died. it is their case that respondent 1-t. muniyappa had died on 19-8-1990, the respondent 2-krishnappa had died on 2-6-2000, the respondent 3-muniyellappa had died on 17-6-2000 and respondent 4-muniyappa had died on 31-10-1999. it is their contention that though respondents 1 to 4 had died, the assistant commissioner has proceeded to pass the impugned order on the ground that notice issued to the respondents 1 to 4 were served. the special deputy commissioner without application of mind has confirmed the order passed by the assistant commissioner.3. i have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned government pleader.4. it is clear from the perusal of the material on record that this writ petition is filed by the legal representatives of the deceased respondents 1 to 4 before the assistant commissioner, it is their case that respondents 1 to 4 before the assistant commissioner had died when the proceedings were initiated during 2002-03. it is clear from the perusal of the records that prior to initiation of proceedings in 2002-03 respondents 1 to 4 had died, the assistant commissioner has committed error in proceeding to pass the impugned order on the basis that notice was issued to respondents 1 to 4 and it was found that they were not residing there and their whereabouts were not known. it is natural when respondents 1 to 4 have died, notice could not have been served upon them and whereabouts will not be known and wherefore, the order.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

V.G. Sabhahit, J.

1. This writ petition is filed being aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District dated 26-4-2004, confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub-Division, Bangalore, dated 26-4-2003, wherein, the Assistant Commissioner in exercise of his power under Section 136(2) read with Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 has cancelled the grant made in favour of respondents 1 to 4 before him.

2. It is the contention of the petitioners that respondents 1 to 4 before the Assistant Commissioner had died. It is their case that respondent 1-T. Muniyappa had died on 19-8-1990, the respondent 2-Krishnappa had died on 2-6-2000, the respondent 3-Muniyellappa had died on 17-6-2000 and respondent 4-Muniyappa had died on 31-10-1999. It is their contention that though respondents 1 to 4 had died, the Assistant Commissioner has proceeded to pass the impugned order on the ground that notice issued to the respondents 1 to 4 were served. The Special Deputy Commissioner without application of mind has confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

4. It is clear from the perusal of the material on record that this writ petition is filed by the legal representatives of the deceased respondents 1 to 4 before the Assistant Commissioner, It is their case that respondents 1 to 4 before the Assistant Commissioner had died when the proceedings were initiated during 2002-03. It is clear from the perusal of the records that prior to initiation of proceedings in 2002-03 respondents 1 to 4 had died, the Assistant Commissioner has committed error in proceeding to pass the impugned order on the basis that notice was issued to respondents 1 to 4 and it was found that they were not residing there and their whereabouts were not known. It is natural when respondents 1 to 4 have died, notice could not have been served upon them and whereabouts will not be known and wherefore, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is perverse, arbitrary and unsustainable in law as notices were issued in the name of dead persons. Even the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is untenable and the Deputy Commissioner was not at all justified in confirming the said order in revision filed by the legal representatives of respondents 1 to 4 before the Assistant Commissioner. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the writ petition is entitled to be allowed and the matter is required to be remitted to the Assistant Commissioner. Accordingly, I pass the following.-

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2006 Same Parties Narayanamma and ors. vs State of Karnataka and ors. Same Subject Property Same Judge V.G. Sabhahit, J. Acts & Sections Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Sections 25 and 136(2)

Property