Partly allowed

Lakshman v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Mar 2016WP/5354/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition filed by the legal heir of a deceased owner against revenue authorities challenging an order declaring preceding sale transactions null and void and directing physical possession. The High Court held the Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction and restrained respondents from dispossession during pendency.

What did the court decide?

Respondents restrained from dispossessing the petitioner pending disposal of the revision petition; petition disposed of summarily.

Lakshman Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF MARCH 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 5354 OF 2016 (KLR-RES)

¶7

Between:

¶8

Lakshman Since deceased, represented by his LR: Smt.Jayamma, 62 years, R/at No.8/8, 2^nd Main, Attiguppe, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru-560 040. …Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri.Prakash T. Hebbar, Advocate)

¶10

And:

¶11

The State of Karnataka, Revenue Department, 5^th floor, M.S.Building, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Bengaluru-1. Represented by its Secretary.

¶12

The Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara District. Ramanagara-571 511.

¶13

¶14

The Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagara District, Ramanagara-571 511.

¶15

The Tahsildar, Ramanagara Taluk, Ramanagara District-571 511. ... Respondents

¶16

(By Sri.H.Venkatesh Dodderi, Additional Government Advocate)

¶17

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct R-2 to consider and dispose of I.A.1 filed by petitioner in R.P.No.14/15-16 pending before R-2 in respect of the land in question as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law with certain time-frame, as per Annexure-A.

¶18

This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the court made the following:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petition coming on for preliminary hearing, the

¶21

Government Advocate is directed to take notice for the

¶22

respondents and the petition is disposed of summarily.

¶23

It is the case of the petitioner that 4 acres of land in Sy.No.35, Block No. 7 of Basavanapura Village, Kasaba Hobli,

¶24

¶25

Ramangaara Taluk was granted to one Sanjeeva and several others in the year 1929-30 under Section 58 of the erstwhile Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1888, and he was put in possession. Since there was non-payment of land revenue over the years, the land was treated as pada land and was brought to sale by the revenue authorities for recovery of arrears of land revenue. One Sri Barkal Mekki purchased the land at a public auction and by an order dated 29/11/1933 the sale was confirmed, as reflected in the record of rights. All the revenue records were transferred in the name of Barkal Mekki. Thereafter the land in question is said to have changed hands under several sale deeds. Ultimately the petitioner’s husband one Lakshman had purchased the land in question under a registered sale deed and he had sought for permission to divert the land for non-agricultural use, and it was granted. After the death of Lakshman, his widow and children sought sanction of khatha in their names by way of inheritance which was also sanctioned. When matters stood thus, the Tahsildar, it is

¶26

¶27

alleged, under political or other pressure had sent a report to the Assistant Commissioner stating that the petitioners had no right in respect of the land, nor did their predecessors in title. Consequently without reference to any provision of law, the Assistant Commissioner by an order dated 6/4/2015 has declared that all the sale transactions preceding that of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner’s husband were null and void and has directed that physical possession be taken over of the land in question. This having been questioned by the petitioner in a revision petition before the respondent No.2 and which was accompanied by an application seeking stay of further action pursuant to the impugned order, the application has not been considered and there is threat of imminent dispossession and therefore the petitioner is before this court.

¶28

As it is apparent that the Assistant Commissioner had

¶29

no jurisdiction or power to set at naught the duly registered sale deeds, the order on the face of it appears to be mischievous and

¶30

¶31

without jurisdiction. Consequently it is appropriate that the petitioner is protected from being dispossessed of the land in question till such time the matter is addressed on merits by the respondent No.2. Therefore the respondents are restrained from dispossessing the petitioner pending disposal of the petition pending before the respondent No.2.

¶32

The petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶33

The Government Advocate is permitted to file his memo of appearance within two weeks.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

Rd/-

Lakshman v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshman v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kampaiah Vs Sarvar Khan

Sri C Vishwanath Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri a N Krishna Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka

K R Sujatha Vs the State of Karnataka

Kammarunnisa Vs the State of Karnataka

Govinda Vs State of Karnataka