Partly allowed

Sri. S Hanumantha v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC18 Jul 2022WP/11663/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition quashing the Deputy Commissioner's orders rejecting the petitioner's application for impleadment in a land resumption case under the PTCL Act. The court held the petitioner was a necessary party due to his interest in the property and directed the proceedings to be restored with status quo maintained.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed. The impugned orders dated 14.08.2017 were quashed. Proceedings restored to the Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration after due opportunity to all parties. Status quo decree

Sri. S Hanumantha Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JULY 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.11663/2018 (SC/ST)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI. S HANUMANTHA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O LATE SESHAPPA RESIDING AT NO.A-19, 31^ST A CROSS, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 082.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. K. SUMAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562 101.

¶12

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101.

¶13

SRI N M SRINIVASA MURTHY MAJOR IN AGE S/O MUNIYAPPA,

¶14

SMT. ASHWATHAMMA MAJOR IN AGE W/O LATE M. MUNIYAPPA,

¶15

SRI THIMMARAYAPPA MAJOR IN AGE

¶16

¶17

S/O LATE BEERAKKA @ BEERAKAPPA,

¶18

SRI CHIKKASADAPPA MAJOR IN AGE S/O LATE BERAKKA @ BERAKAPPA, SL.NO. 3 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT NANDI VILLAGE NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK - 562 101.

¶19

SRI K. ANIL KUMAR AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O LATE K V G LAXMAN RAO NO.175, IV BLOCK 3^RD STAGE, BASAVESHWARANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 079.

¶20

... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.VENKAT SATYANARAYAN .A, HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRI. HALESHA R.G., ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R6; R7 SERVICE HELD SUFFICIEINT)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH / SET ASIDE (i) THE ILLEGAL ORDER DATED 14.8.2017 PASSED BY R-1 REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR IMPLEADMENT IN CASE NO. RA / SC / ST/ 08 / 2015- 16 AT ANNEXURE-A ; (ii) THE FINAL ORDER DATED 14.8.2017 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER / R-1 IN CASE NO. R.A. / SC / ST / 08/ 2015-16 AT ANNEXURE-A2 AND (iii) THE ILLEGAL ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIOENR / R-2 IN CASE NO. PTCL (Chikka) 82/2010-11 DATED 28.11.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND TO CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE R-3 TO 6 BEFORE THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER - R-2 IN CASE NO. PTCL (Chikka) 82/2010-11 AS ILLEGAL.

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

The petitioner, who has purchased the land measuring 2 acres in Sy.139 (earlier No.28/P4) of Angatta village, Nandi Hobli, Chikkaballapur Taluk, Chikkaballapur District ( the subject land ), has impugned the following orders. The second order dated 14.08.2017 in RA/SC.ST/08/2015-16 is for restoration of the subject property in favour of the legal heirs of the original grantee, the third to sixth respondents.

¶27

(i) the order dated 14.08.2017 on the petitioner’s application in No.RA/SC.ST/08/2015-16 (Annexure -A1), and

¶28

(ii) the final order dated 14.08.2017 in No.RA/SC.ST/08/2015-16 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkaballapur District (Annexure - A-2).

¶29

The Assistant Commissioner (the second

¶30

respondent), by order dated 28.11.2014, has allowed the third respondent’s application under Section 5 of

¶31

¶32

the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act,1978 (for short the ‘PTCL Act’) directing resumption and restoration of the subject property in favour of the legal heirs of the grantee. The third respondent had arrayed only the seventh respondent as the opponent in the application. However indisputably, the seventh respondent [the purchaser of the subject property under the sale deed dated 15.05.2008] has transferred the same in favour of the petitioner on 29.11.2013.

¶33

The seventh respondent has called in question the Assistant Commissioner’s order dated 28.11.2014 before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5(1-A) of the PTCL Act in No.RA/SCST/08/2015-16. The petitioner has filed application for impleadment. The Deputy Commissioner has rejected the petitioner’s application and the seventh respondent’s appeal by separate but even dated orders. Hence, the present petition.

¶34

¶35

Sri K. Suman, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Deputy Commissioner has rejected the application for impleadment for a reason that is impermissible in law. The Deputy Commissioner could not have rejected the application for impleadment for the reason that allowing the same would be contumacious and against the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He submits that this can never be the proposition in law. On merits against resumption and restoration of the subject property, Sri K. Suman, submits that the contesting respondents (the third to sixth respondents) cannot dispute that the subject property was granted way back on 18.10.1948 and there have been six prior transactions before the commencement of the proceedings for resumption and restoration.

¶36

5. Sri K. Suman submits that there is

¶37

inordinate delay of over 60 years in the initiation of the

¶38

¶39

proceedings, and this would be a ground available to the petitioner to successfully contend that the subject land would not have been resumed or restored under the provisions of the PTCL Act in the light of the Supreme Court’s case in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and another¹ . The details of the sale deeds as furnished by Sri K. Suman are as follows:

¶40

SALES	SALE DEED DATED	VENDOR	PURCHASER
I sale	26.10.1963	Subbarayappa	P. Narasimha Reddy
II sale	26.07.1968	P. Narasimha Reddy	K. Muniyappa
III sale	16.08.2005	K. Muniyappa	M.S. Ashok
IV sale	13.10.2006	M.S. Ashok	Showkath
V sale	15.05.2008	Showkath	K. Anil Kumar (Seventhrespondent)
VI sale	29.11.2013	K.Anil Kumar (Seventhrespondent)	S. Hanumantha

¶41

1 (2020)14 SCC 232

¶42

¶43

Sri Halesha, the learned counsel for the

¶44

contesting respondents, submits that after the Assistant Commissioner’s order dated 28.11.2014, the subject land not only is resumed but is also restored to the contesting respondents. This is evidenced by the notice dated 15.09.2015 and the subsequent mahazar. If the land is already restored, the petitioner cannot sustain this petition.

¶45

In rejoinder, Sri K. Suman, submits that the restoration of the subject land [if any] can only be recognized if it is in accordance with the provisions of Section 39 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 given the provisions of Rule 3(6) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Rules, 1979. However, in the present case, there is no such compliance and the petitioner, who has entered possession of the subject property simultaneously with the execution and

¶46

¶47

registration of the sale deed dated 29.11.2013, is not even issued with any notice. In any event, if the petitioner can demonstrate that there is inordinate delay in initiation of the proceedings, the proceedings for resumption and restoration must inevitably fail in law. The petitioner is in possession of the subject property and that would be unassailable.

¶48

The rival submissions are anxiously considered, and the records perused. At the first instance, this Court must opine that the Deputy Commissioner could not have rejected the petitioner’s application on the reason that considering the petitioner’s application for impleadment would be contumacious. It is trite that every person who could be a necessary party to any proceedings must be allowed, and even if a person is a proper party, can be permitted to come on record if circumstances so justify. The Deputy Commissioner says that the Hon’ble Supreme

¶49

¶50

Court has frowned upon allowing such application without referring to the specific order.

¶51

Further, it is not disputed that the seventh respondent, during the pendency of the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, has transferred the subject property in favour of the petitioner, and thus the petitioner has acquired undeniable interest in the subject property. Insofar as the bona fides , the petitioner’s contention, as canvassed by Sri K. Suman, is that the seventh respondent failed to disclose the initiation of the proceedings at the time of the sale deed dated 29.11.2013 and subsequently the seventh respondent has initiated even the appeal proceedings without informing the petitioner. This Court, considering the circumstances in which bona fides are pleaded, and the indisputable transfer in favour of the petitioner, is of the considered view that the petitioner was a necessary party before the Deputy Commissioner

¶52

¶53

and his application should have been allowed. The petitioner must necessarily succeed to this extent.

¶54

If the petitioner ought to have been heard and is not heard while disposing of the appeal on merits, the order dated 14.08.2017 cannot be sustained and must yield. However, the Deputy Commissioner must reconsider the challenge to the Assistant Commissioner’s order after due opportunity to the petitioner and the seventh respondent and every other respondent to complete pleadings. At this stage, this Court must also observe that the Deputy Commissioner must hold appropriate enquiry and find out whether the land is restored to the contesting respondents and whether due process, as contemplated in law, is followed and even otherwise, determine whether the contesting respondents would be entitled for resumption and restoration if there is inordinate delay only because they assert that the subject land is restored. The

¶55

¶56

parties must, in the meanwhile, maintain status quo and not take precipitous action as against possession or title to the subject property which is stated to be vacant. For the foregoing, the following

¶57

ORDER

¶58

The petition is allowed, and both the impugned orders dated 14.08.2017 in No.RA/SCST/08/2015-16 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkaballapur District (Annexures-A1 and A2) are quashed. The proceedings in No.RA/SC/ST/08/2015-16 is restored to the board of the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner (first respondent) for reconsideration in the light of the observation by this Court in this order.

¶59

The petitioner and the contesting respondents shall maintain status quo as regards title and possession of the subject property without any precipitation until the disposal of the proceedings by the Deputy Commissioner, and the petitioner and all the

¶60

¶61

respondents shall appear, without further notice, before the Deputy Commissioner on 16.08.2022.

¶62

Sd/JUDGE

¶63

Sri. S Hanumantha v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. S Hanumantha 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr K Mohan Raju Vs Atria Convergence Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Smt a Vinovathi Bai Vs Sri M Jayaram

M/S Housing Development Finance Vs Mr S v Bharath

M R Seetharam Vs Sri K G Venkatesh

Shri Rajendra Patil Vs the Deputy Commissioner

M/S. Ramya Reprographic Pvt. Ltd., Vs Smt. Bindu. P