Allowed

Sri. Y K Gopala v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC26 Mar 2021WP/18745/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition and quashed impugned orders under the ST Act. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding delay, the Court held that an application filed after 28 years was not reasonable and dismissed the earlier authorities contrary to the petitioner's interest.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed and the orders dated 06.12.2012 and 09.02.2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner were quashed and set aside.

Sri. Y K Gopala Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.18745/2017 (SC/ST)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SRI. Y K GOPALA S/O KENCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O YADAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, C.A.KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT PIN 571422.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI N JAGADISH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA PIN 571401.

¶12

2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANDYA SUB-DIVISION, MANDYA PIN 571401.

¶13

3 . SRI SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O JAVARAYI @ NAGAIAH, R/O YADGANAHALLI VILLAGE, C.A.KERE HOBLI,

¶14

¶15

MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT PIN 571422.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI ARUN K S, HCGP FOR R1 & R2 R3 SERVED )

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE R-1 IN CASE NO.R.A.PTCL 13/2013 AND TO QUASH THE ANNEXURE-B PASSED BY THE R-2 IN CASE NO. P.T.C.L. NO.05/08-09 DTD 06.12.2012 IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.99/5P2, MEASURING 34 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT YADGANAHALLI VILLAGE, C.A.KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT AND ETC.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶22

The petitioner, being aggrieved of the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, is before this Court.

¶23

¶24

Some of the admitted facts are that 34 guntas of land in Sy.No.99/5 P2 situated at Yadaganahalli Village, Chikkarasikere Hobli, Maddur Taluk, Mandya, was granted in favour of Sri Javarayi, S/o Piddaiah, on 20.07.1974. The original grantee Javarayi executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner herein on 25.07.1974. It is not disputed that the petitioner herein is the nephew of the original grantee Javarayi viz., he is the son of Javarai’s younger brother. It is contended at the hands of the petitioner that it was only a family arrangement and not a sale transaction which could be considered as a ‘transfer’ as defined in the Act. Nevertheless, the third respondent-Sri Shivanna S/o Javarayi filed an application during the year 2008 before the Assistant Commissioner seeking restoration of the land in favour of the third respondent alleging that the sale transaction is contrary to the conditions of the grant. The Assistant Commissioner accepted the contention of the third respondent and held that the sale transaction is void. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner was also dismissed and consequently this writ petition is filed.

¶25

¶26

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that other than the fact that the transaction is not a transfer within the meaning of the word ‘transfer’ as defined under the provisions of the Act, even otherwise, in view of the latest decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi Vs State of Karnataka and Another , reported in 2017 SCC Online SC 1862 and Vivek M. Hinduja and others Vs. M. Ashwatha and others , reported in 2018 (1) Kar. L.R. 176 (SC) , the application being filed after an enormous delay of more than 28 years, the application was required to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

¶27

The third respondent has remained unrepresented even though notice is served.

¶28

Therefore, on the basis of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the application being filed after delay of more than 28 years, cannot be considered as reasonable and therefore in terms of the rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as submitted

¶29

¶30

by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the application was required to be dismissed.

¶31

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed . The impugned orders dated 06.12.2012 and 09.02.2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶32

It is ordered accordingly.

¶33

SD/JUDGE

¶34

JT/-

Sri. Y K Gopala v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Y K Gopala v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. E Pushpa Vs State of Karnataka

C.C.Santhosh Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Amzad Vs the State of Karnataka

Renuka Shetty Vs State of Karnataka

Venkateshappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Rachappa Vs Sri a G Shivaprasad Reddy