Administrative authorities must ensure due process in decisions affecting property rights, including proper notice and opportunity to be heard.

ORDER :

RAJESH RAI K, J.

1. The petitioners in this writ petition have sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 01.08.2014 passed by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District vide Annexure-'L' and order dated 03.12.2007 passed by respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub-Division, Bangalore vide Annexure-'H'.

2. The grievance of the petitioners is that, the Land Tribunal has granted occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.3/3 measuring 1 acre 03 guntas of Choodenapura village, Bangalore South Taluk (for brevity, 'subject land') in favour of Ramakrishnappa, the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of other petitioners vide order dated 15.10.1976 and thereafter, the Tahasildar, Bangalore South Taluk has issued occupancy certificate in his favour vide order dated 16.08.1982. Based upon the occupancy certificate, the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk has effected mutation in the name of Ramakrishnappa vide MR.No.12/1994-95 dated 23.02.1994 and ever since, he was in possession and cultivation subject land as absolute owner without there being any interference from anybody.

3. Such being the fact, the defeated claimant late Shaik Bheeramsab has filed a suit for declaration of title against Ramakrishnappa in respect of Sy.No.3/3 in O.S No.173/2000. The said suit came to be dismissed. Subsequent to the same, respondent Nos. 4 to 24 who claims to be the legatees of late Nabi Sab, owner of subject land have also filed a suit for declaration of title in O.S.No.1742/2006 and the same is pending for consideration.

4. In the meanwhile, respondent Nos.4 to 24 have also filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT (for brevity, 'the KLR Act') challenging the mutation entry in MR.No.12/1994-95 dated 23.02.1994 in RA(S) No.35/2006-07, wherein, the Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal by order dated 03.12.2007.

5. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, has preferred the revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No. 136/09-10 and similarly the legal heirs of Late Shaik Bheeramsab have also challenged the said order before the Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No.146/08-09. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner has passed the common order clubbing both the revision petitions vide order dated 01.08.2014. According to the petitioners, the said order came to their knowledge only after they received the caveat petition filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 24 before this Court.

6. After verification of the order sheet in the Revision Petitions, the petitioners came to know that the Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned order without due notice and without hearing the parties. As such, Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners are before this court.

7. Heard Sri V.B Shivakumar, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Rahul Cariappa K.S., learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri T. Prakash, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6, 7, 9 to 15.

8. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have erred in allowing the appeal filed by respondent Nos.4 to 24 and thereby directing the Tahsildar to effect the necessary changes in the revenue entries by entering their names in respect of Sy.No.3/3 measuring 1 acre 3 guntas. He contended that the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk in LRF 1512/74-75 clearly depicts that Ramakrishnappa, father of petitioners 2 to 5, was conferred with occupancy right in respect of land bearing Sy.No.3/3. Further, Form No.10 also issued in the name of Ramakrishnappa in respect of Sy.No.3/3 measur