- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3155 WP No. 23207 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 23207 OF 2021 (EXCISE) BETWEEN: SMT RAJAMMA, W/O PUTTASWAMY GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, SINGANALLURU VILLAGE, PALYA HOBLI, KOLLEGAL TALUK - 571 440, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) …PETITIONER (BY SRI G K BHAT, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT D SUDHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT, CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 440. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLLEGAL SUB-DIVISION, KOLLEGAL - 571440. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KOLLEGAL TALUK,KOLLEGAL - 571440. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU -570008. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MANJUNATH B, AGA FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.16.4.2021 AS PER ANENXURE-D. Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3155 WP No. 23207 of 2021 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER The present position is filed impugning the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. In terms of order dated 16.04.2021 at Annexure-D, 1st respondent Deputy Commissioner has dismissed the revision petition under Section 136 (3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The petitioner contends that 2nd respondent Assistant Commissioner has created charge in all the properties bearing survey No.342/1 measuring 1.45 acres, 342/2 measuring 0.90 acre and 334/4 measuring 1.42 acres in Singanalluru Village, Playa Hobli, Kollegal Taluk. The Deputy Commissioner has dismissed the appeal on the premise that the creation of charge in respect of aforementioned properties is legal as there is arrears of excise revenue payable by partnership firm called by Balaji Liquors in which, Sri Rachappaji was a partner. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3155 WP No. 23207 of 2021 2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that liability of the firm cannot be the liability of the partner and family members of the partner. It is his contention that the procedure adopted by the Assistant Commissioner to attach and create charge over the property is illegal and no notice is issued before creating charge on the property of the petitioner. He would also content that on 22.10.2013, Rachappaji who was one of the partners of the said firm has executed a Release Deed in favour of the petitioner. Thus, Rachappaji has no right over the properties subsequent to 22.10.2013. 3. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would contend that partnership firm Balaji Liquors was in arrears of revenue payable to the State under the Karnataka Excise Act. Rachappaji was one of the partners and notice was issued to recover the said amount as a step in aid, the mutation is certified creating charge over the property. The petitioner has no right over the property of the Rachappaji - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3155 WP No. 23207 of 2021 and the Assistant Commissioner is justified in creating the charge and Deputy Commissioner is justified in dismissing the revision petition. It is his further submission that the registered lease deed which is executed after the issuance of notice at Annexure-R9 and it is an afterthought and is executed in collusion. 4. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 5. As can be noticed from the order at Annexure- B, the Assistant Commissioner has not issued notice before certifying the mutation. The procedures contemplated under the Land Revenue Act would require the Assistant Commissioner to issue notice to the affected party before certifying any mutation creating charge over the property. Such procedures are not followed. Under these circumstances, the impugned orders have to be set aside. The matter has to be remitted to the Assistant Commissioner to issue notice to the concerned parties including the petitioner and also Rachappaji S/o - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3155 WP No. 23207 of 2021 Puttaswamy Gowda as to why the charge should not be created over the property of Rachappaji S/o Puttaswamy Gowda and thereafter, affording an opportunity to both the parties to substantiate their claim and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 6. Hence, writ petition is allowed in part. Impugned Annexure-D and order at Annexure-B are set- aside. 7. The matter is remitted to the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Kollegala to consider the claim afresh in accordance with law. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the matter. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28