: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2015 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION NOS.107810/2014 C/W 85491/2013 (KLR-RES) IN WP NO 107810 OF 2014 BETWEEN SRI KRISHNAPPA A/F. YENKAPPA DASAR AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. BAVALATTI VILLAGE, TQ:BILAGI... PETITIONER (BY SRI M.S.HARAVI, ADV.) AND 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BAGALKOT DIST: BAGALKOT 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER JAMAKHANDI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI DIST: BAGALKOT 3. THE TAHASILDAR BILAGI, TQ: BILAGI... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAVI V. HOSAMANI, GA FOR R1-R3)
: 2 : THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.06.2014 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-O AND ETC., IN WP NO 85491 OF 2013 BETWEEN SRI KRISHNAPPA A/F YANKAPPA DASAR AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. BASVALATTI VILLAGE, TQ: BILAGI BY HIS GPA HOLDER YANKAPPA S/O.KRISHNAPPA DASAR AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. BAVALATTI VILLAGE, TQ: BILAGI... PETITIONER (BY SRI M S HARAVI, ADV.) AND 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER JAMAKHANDI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI DIST: BAGALKOT 3. THE TAHASILDAR BILAGI, TQ: BILAGI... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAVI V. HOSAMANI, GA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.28.10.2013 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-J AND ETC., THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
: 3 : ORDER Heard Sri M.S.Haravi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the petitions and Sri Ravi V. Hosamani, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. In W.P.No.85491/2013, petitioner is seeking for quashing of the order dated 28.10.2013 passed by the 2 nd respondent vide Annexure-J whereunder name of the petitioner has been ordered to be deleted. It is contended that said order is in violation of principles of natural justice and without notice to the petitioner. W.P.No.107810/2014 is filed by the same petitioner seeking for quashing of the order dated 03.06.2014 passed by the 3 rd respondent Annexure-O whereunder prayer made by the petitioner for entering his name in the revenue records in respect of Sy.No.1/B/1 has been rejected on the ground that Assistant Commissioner has passed an order on 28.10.2013 (which is the subject
: 4 : matter of W.P.No.85491/2013) and as such, petitioner has to redress his grievance before said authority and on said ground he has rejected prayer of the petitioner. 3. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the parties. By consent, both these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. 4. Assistant Commissioner, Jamkhandi is the 2 nd respondent in both these petitions. On the basis of representations said to have submitted by the villagers requesting for deletion of name of the adoptive father of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of land bearing No.1/B/1 of Bavalatti village, Bilagi taluk, Bagalkot district, measuring 5 acres, 2 nd respondent passed an order cancelling the name of adoptive father of petitioner in the ROR vide order dated 28.10.2013 and has also directed 3 rd respondent to delete the name of owner from the ROR. Subsequent to said order being
: 5 : passed, petitioner has filed an application for entering his name in respect of the said land on the ground that petitioner had acquired said land through his adoptive father Yenkappa Dasar and mother Thimmavva Dasar by survivorship. It is not in dispute that ROR contained the name of Yenkappa Dasar. Petitioner claims to have succeeded to said property on the ground that he had been adopted by said Yenkappa Dasar. The grievance of petitioner is that there was no notice to the petitioner before deleting the name of his adoptive father in ROR. When petitioner is claiming right over the property in question and he being an interested person in the land in question, authorities ought to have issued notice to petitioner. Order in question indicates that no notice was issued to the petitioner and as such, it would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, said order cannot be sustained and it is liable to be quashed.
: 6 : 5. Endorsement issued to the petitioner by the 3 rd respondent on 03.06.2014 vide Annexure-O in W.P.No.107810/2014 cannot be found fault with at this stage or prayer in said writ petition has become infructuous in view of the fact that order passed by the 2 nd respondent dated 28.10.2013 Annexure-J (W.P.No.85491/2013) having been set aside herein above. Respondent authorities would be at liberty to consider prayer of the petitioner for entering his name in ROR on conclusion of proceedings. Since the matter is being remitted to 2 nd respondent i.e., Assistant Commissioner, Jamkhandi, he shall adjudicate the matter on merits and after affording opportunity to the petitioner as well as other interested persons, if any. Since petitioner has already appeared before this Court and matter is being remitted back to the 2 nd respondent, no fresh notice is required to be issued by 2 nd respondent to petitioner.
: 7 : In the light of discussion made hereinabove, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) W.P.No.85491/2013 is hereby allowed, ii) Order dated 28.10.2013 Annexure-J is hereby quashed and the proceedings in RTC/CR/327/13-14 is remitted back to the 2 nd respondent for being adjudicated on merits and in accordance with law, iii) Petitioner shall appear before the 2 nd respondent on 29.01.2015 at 3 p.m., iv) W.P.No.107810/2014 stands disposed of in view of the observations made hereinabove, ii) In W.P.No.85491/2013 rule is made absolute. No costs. Jm/- Sd/- JUDGE