Dismissed

Sri Ramesh v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2021WA/131/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ appeal challenging the Single Judge's order quashing an illegal transfer of land granted to a Scheduled Caste member. The court held that proceedings initiated after a 25-year delay fall within earlier Supreme Court precedents allowing resumption and restoration, unlike cases with shorter delays.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; order dated 14.12.2020 in W.P. No. 55052/2015 upheld.

Sri Ramesh Vs the State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO.131 OF 2021 (SC-ST)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. RAMESH S/O LATE S. RUDRAPPA, AGED 43 YEARS, R/O CHENNAGIRI CITY, CHENNAGIRI TALUK AND DISTGRICT-577 213.

¶11

...APPELLANT

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE-577 001.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE SUB DIVISION, DAVNAGERE-577 001.

¶16

THE THASILDHAR DAVANAGERE TALUK DAVANAGERE-577 001.

¶17

¶18

SRI. DODDAMUDDAPPA S/O DODDAJJARA MUDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/O THIPPAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHENNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. SRUTI CHAGANTI, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR RESPONDENT NO.5)

¶21

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL, BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.12.2020, IN W.P. NO. 55052/2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER.

¶22

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, NATARAJ RANGASWAMY J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

This appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 is filed challenging the correctness of the order dated 14.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.55052/2015. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the respondent No.2 herein ordering the resumption and restoration of land bearing Sy.No.7/1 of Dandigenalahlli, Chennagiri Taluk.

¶25

¶26

The aforesaid land was granted on 16.06.1965 to one Gadhrinaika who apparently belonged to scheduled caste. His legal heirs sold the said property on 03.06.1982 without obtaining necessary permission as contemplated under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1978' for short). Long thereafter, proceedings under the Act of 1978 were initiated before the respondent No.3 in the year 2007. The respondent No.3 rejected the claim of the appellant herein who thereafter filed an appeal under Section 5(A) of the Act of 1978. The respondent No.2 allowed the appeal and ordered resumption and restoration of the land in favour of the legal heirs of the original grantee.

¶27

The respondent No.5 challenged the order of respondent No.2 before this Court in W.P.55052/2015. The learned Single Judge relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of NEKKANTI RAMA

¶28

¶29

LAKSHMI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER

¶30

reported in 2017 SCC ONLINE 1862 and MR.VIVEK M. HINDUJA AND OTHERS VS. MR.ASWATHA AND

¶31

OTHERS reported in 2019 KAR LJ 819 and allowed the writ petition.

¶32

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present appeal is filed.

¶33

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the transfer in question in favour of the respondent No.5 was clearly in violation of Section 4 of the Act of 1978 and that therefore, the transfer was hit by Section 4(2) of the Act of 1978. He claimed that the transfer was void and therefore, the respondent No.2 was justified in ordering resumption and restoration. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SATYAN VS.

¶34

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS reported in 2009 SCC ONLINE SC 710 : (2020) 14 SCC 210 , where the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered a case of resumption and restoration granted land that was sold in

¶35

¶36

violation of Section 4 of the Act of 1978. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the delay of eight years by itself cannot come in the way of the competent authority taking action under the Act of 1978.

¶37

Per contra , the learned counsel for respondent No.5 contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SATYAN (supra) was considering a case where the transfer itself was doubtful and also invited our attention to the remark of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 33, which reads as follows:

¶38

"The cases referred to by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant involved huge gaps of around 20-30 years, which is not so in the present case."

¶39

He therefore contended that in the present case there is a delay of nearly 25 years in initiating proceedings for resumption and restoration and that the case is squarely covered by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of NEKKANTI RAMA

¶40

¶41

LAKSHMI and MR.VIVEK M. HINDUJA AND OTHERS

¶42

(referred supra).

¶43

Since there is no dispute regarding the date of grant, transfer and the initiation of proceedings, it is clear that the proceedings under the Act were initiated after a long delay of 25 years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of JT. COLLECTOR, RANGA REDDY DIST. AND ANR. ETC. VS. D. NARSING RAO AND ORS. ETC. ETC. reported in AIR 2015 SC 1021 that quasi judicial proceedings have to be initiated within a reasonable time and the same principle is reiterated in the cases of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI and MR.VIVEK M. HINDUJA AND OTHERS (referred supra). As rightly contended by the learned counsel for respondent No.5, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SATYAN (supra) was a case where the transfer was doubtful and the resumption proceeding was initiated within eight years. In the peculiar facts of that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court interfered and ordered restoration.

¶44

¶45

In the present case, the proceedings are initiated after a prolonged delay of 25 years and therefore, the same is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of in NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI (supra). The learned Single Judge has considered the same and has allowed the writ petition. There is no error apparent in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Hence, this writ appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

NR/-

Sri Ramesh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ramesh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Karataka Vs Sri. Subhash Vishram Naik

Central Board of Direct Taxes Vs M/S Vasudev Adigas Fast Food Pvt. Ltd.

State of Karnataka Vs Sri Mayanna Gowda M

K Swamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sudhanva Bhandolkar B K Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri M Srinivas Vs the State of Karnataka