Dismissed

Sri. A.K. Shivamurthy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Sept 2022WP/1617/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition alleging illegal transfer of scheduled land. The Court held that despite procedural irregularities regarding the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioners were not entitled to restoration due to an inordinate delay of over 32 years from the Act's commencement, citing Apex Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands dismissed as the petitioners are not entitled to restoration due to inordinate delay.

Sri. A.K. Shivamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.1617/2020 (SC/ST)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI A.K. SHIVAMURTHY S/O A.K. RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDENT OF DAGENAKATTE VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 001.

¶9

SRI THIPPESH A K S/O RANGAPPA A K AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDENT OF DAGENAKATTE VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 001.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI SAGAR B.B., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE-577 001.

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

THE TAHASILDAR CHANNAGIRI TALUK CHANAGIRI DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 001.

¶18

SRI SHIVALINGAPPA S/O NINGAPPA AGED MAJOR

¶19

SMT. SUSHEELAMMA W/O. DASHARATHAPPA AGED MAJOR

¶20

SRI D. BASAVARAJAPPA S/O DASHARATHAPPA AGED MAJOR

¶21

SRI D. MANJAPPA S/O DASHARATHAPPA AGED MAJOR

¶22

SMT. VANI W/O. B.G. JAGANNATH AGED MAJOR

¶23

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF DAGINAKATTE VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 001.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SMT N. ANITHA, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-4; SRI H.V. HARISH, ADVOCATE FOR R-9; R-6, R-7 AND R-8 SERVED; V/O DATED 9.03.2022 R-5 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶26

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE SUBDIVN, DAVANAGERE, IN CASE NO.PTCL/CR/30/11-12, DATED 03.05.2017 R-3 HEREIN VIDE ANNEXURE-H, AS WELL AS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE, VIDE NO.PTCL/CR-05/2017-18, DATED 10.01.2020 R-2 HEREIN VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND ETC.

¶28

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

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

The land bearing Sy.No.139, (old No.79/3) measuring 5 acres, situated at Daginakatte Village, Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere District, is alleged to have been granted in favour of one Durgappa S/o Sigadi Ranganna who is the grand father of the petitioners vide order dated 20.05.1950.

¶31

The original grantee sold the subject land in favour of one Shivalingappa by executing the registered sale deed dated 22.08.1957. He in turn sold the subject land in favour of Dasharathappa by executing the registered sale deed dated 12.04.1997 and respondent No.7 in turn purchased the subject property through the registered sale deed 4.7.2011.

¶32

¶33

Petitioners who are claiming to be the legal representatives of the deceased grantee filed an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short "PTCL Act") before the Assistant Commissioner concerned for resumption and restoration of the subject land alleging that the sale deed executed in favour of the respondent No.7 was in contravention of Section 4(1) of the PTCL act.

¶34

The Assistant Commissioner concerned rejected the application stating that the petitioners have not produced any documents to substantiate their claim that the subject land was a granted land as specified under Section 3 (1) (b) of the PTCL Act, against which the petitioners filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner concerned. The Deputy Commissioner concerned allowed the appeal against which respondents No.6 to 9 were before this Court in W.P.No.6968/2013. This Court by order dated 20.11.2014, allowed the writ petition and remitted the matter to the Assistant Commissioner concerned for reconsideration of the appeal.

¶35

¶36

The Assistant Commissioner concerned rejected the application on the ground that there is no material to substantiate the claim of the petitioners that the subject land was a granted land as defined under Section 3 (1) (b) of the PTCL Act, against which the petitioners filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner concerned under Section 5(A) of the PTCL Act.

¶37

The Deputy Commissioner concerned dismissed the appeal reiterating the reasons assigned by the Assistant Commissioner concerned and also on the ground that the application filed by the petitioners after an inordinate delay of more than 32 years from the date of commencement of the PTCL Act, against which, the present petition is filed.

¶38

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the official who passed an order in the capacity of the Assistant Commissioner concerned has rejected the appeal filed by the petitioners and as such the respondent No.2 could not have passed the impugned order, instead of transferring the

¶39

¶40

appeal to the competent officer. Hence, he submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is impermissible. He further submits that the petitioners were not provided with an opportunity to explain the delay in filing the application. Hence, petitioners may be permitted to offer plausible explanation for the delay by remitting the matter to the Assistant Commissioner concerned for reconsideration of the application afresh.

¶41

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.9 submits that the petitioners have not produced any documents to substantiate their claim that the subject property was a granted land as defined under Section 3(1) (b) of the PTCL Act and also the petitioner is not entitled for restoration since the application was filed after an inordinate delay of more than 32 years from the date of commencement of the PTCL Act. Hence, he submits that the Deputy Commissioner concerned has rightly passed the impugned order and the same does not warrant interference and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶42

¶43

The learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-

¶44

State would reiterate the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.9.

¶45

I have examined the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶46

The first sale deed was executed on 22.08.1957. The PTCL act came into effect on 01.01.1979. The application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was admittedly filed in the year 2011 after an inordinate delay of more than 32 years from the date of commencement of the PTCL Act and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi -vs- State of Karnataka and another reported in ILR 2018 Kar. 1352 has held that the grantees are not entitled for restoration of the land if an application for restoration is not field within a reasonable time from the date of commencement of the PTCL Act.

¶47

The Deputy Commissioner who has passed the impugned order in the capacity of the Assistant Commissioner had passed the order rejecting the application under Section 5 of

¶48

¶49

the PTCL Act, and he was under an obligation to transfer the appeal filed the petitioners to the competent officer instead of passing impugned order. However, that the petitioners are not entitled for restoration of the subject land as the application was filed after an inordinate delay of more than 32 years, and it would be an futile exercise, if the matter is remitted to the respondent No.2 for reconsideration of the appeal afresh filed by the petitioners.

¶50

In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2.

¶51

Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

Sri. A.K. Shivamurthy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. A.K. Shivamurthy 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

Pushpa Narasimhan Vs Appellate Authority and Executive Officer

N B Raghevendra Rao Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Jayamma Vs State of Karnataka

K a Swathi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K Armugachari Vs State of Karnataka

Shri K v Shivakumar Vs the Commissioner