Dismissed

The State of Karnataka v. Sri. R. Nagaraj

Karnataka HC11 Apr 2022WA/2239/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court appellate bench dismissed the appeal against the Single Judge’s order allowing the respondent to retain land registration. The court held that an order under the Inams Abolition Act cannot be set aside under the Land Revenue Act, noting the 47-year delay in the cancellation proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of without interference with the Single Judge’s order; liberty granted to the appellants to seek remedy against the original 1967 order.

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri. R. Nagaraj — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF APRIL 2022

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶7

WA NO.2239 OF 2018 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

The State of Karnataka Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Revenue Departemnt, Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶10

The Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District, Kolar – 563 101.

¶11

The Tahsildar, Maluru Taluk, Maluru – 563 130.

¶12

…. Appellants

¶13

(By Sri S.Rajashekar, AGA)

¶14

AND

¶15

Sri R.Nagaraj, Aged about 45 years,

¶16

¶17

S/o.Ramanna, Harohalli road, Residing at Malur Town, Malur – 563 130. …Respondent

¶18

(By Sri. Shashi Kiran Shetty, Senior Counsel for Sri Kiran J., advocate)

¶19

This writ appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the impugned order dated 10.08.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.48810-813/2014 and 48814-816/2014.

¶20

This writ appeal, coming on for hearing, this day, ALOK ARADHE J ., delivered the following:

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Mr.S.Rajashekar, learned AGA for the appellants.

¶23

Mr.Shashi Kiran Shetty, Senior Counsel for Sri Kiran

¶24

J., for respondent.

¶25

This intra-court appeal has been filed against

¶26

the order dated 10.08.2017 passed by the learned Single judge, by which, the order dated 10.10.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District,

¶27

¶28

Kolar has been quashed and the writ petitions preferred by the respondent herein has been allowed.

¶29

Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that in a proceeding under Section 6 of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (for short, ‘Inams Abolition Act’), the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bangalore by order dated 22.06.1967 in Case No.2788/1961-62 registered the vendor of the respondent, namely, Smt.Sarojamma as quasipermanent tenant. The name of the grantee namely Sarojamma was entered in the revenue records as per the mutation entry bearing MR No.2/1990-91. Smt.Sarojamma sold the property bearing Sy.No.160 measuring 22 acres 23 guntas to the respondent vide registered sale deed dated 23.01.2013. The name of respondent was thereafter mutated in the revenue records. The respondent thereafter sought conversion

¶30

¶31

of the land for non-agricultural purposes. On the aforesaid application made by the respondent, no orders were passed. The respondent filed W.P.Nos.9423-35/2014 which was disposed of on 10.04.2014 with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District to determine the amount payable by the respondent by way of conversion fee and to issue required conversion certificate within a period of two months.

¶32

The aforesaid order passed by this Court was not complied with. Thereupon the respondent initiated contempt proceedings which was dropped on 27.08.2014 as the Deputy Commissioner filed a memo stating that the order passed by this Court has been complied with.

¶33

The Deputy Commissioner thereafter initiated proceedings under Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 cancelling the revenue entries in

¶34

¶35

favour of the respondent and his vendor on the ground that the land in question is a gomal land and could not have been subject matter of proceeding for grant of occupancy rights under the Inams Abolition Act.

¶36

The respondent challenged the afroresaid order in writ petitions. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 10.08.2017 quashed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District, Kolar and allowed the writ petitions preferred by the respondent. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

¶37

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the land in question is a gomal land and could not have been the subject matter of the proceedings under the provisions of Inams Abolition Act.

¶38

¶39

On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference.

¶40

We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the records.

¶41

Admittedly, the order dated 22.6.1967 was passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner under Section 6 of the Inams Abolition Act. The aforesaid order was not challenged and has attained the finality. After a period of 47 years, the Deputy Commissioner exercised the power under Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and set aside the revenue entries in favour of the respondent as well as his vendor. In effect, the Deputy Commissioner exercised the power under Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act which is set at naught

¶42

¶43

the order dated 22.06.1967 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bangalore is under the Inams Abolition Act. It is trite law that the order passed under one Act cannot be set aside under the provisions of another Act. Besides that, the Deputy Commissioner could not have set aside the entries by initiating proceedings after an inordinate delay of 47 years, for which, no explanation has been offered.

¶44

For the aforementioned reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. However, this order shall not be an impediment liberty take recourse to such remedy as may be available to them in law against the order dated 22.06.1967 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition Act, Bangalore in Case No.2788/1961-62 under Section 6 of the Inams Abolition Act.

¶45

¶46

With the aforesaid liberty, the appeal is

disposed of.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

Cm/-

The State of Karnataka v. Sri. R. Nagaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Sri. R. Nagaraj

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

Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Vs M Venkataramaiah

Sri. C S Mohan Vs Nsl Sugars (Tungabhadra) Limited

Sri H C Duggappa Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr S N Abhinandana Vs Smt M P Saroja

Mohamed Hussain Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ramakrishna M N Vs Smt Sujatha H J