Allowed

Shri Rajendra Patil v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC18 Jul 2022WP/24741/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the writ petition filed by a property purchaser challenging orders under the Karnataka PTCL Act. The court held that unexplained delay in initiating proceedings after resumption and subsequent diversion of land to non-agricultural use warranted quashing the impugned orders, citing the Supreme Court decision in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 20.12.2012 and 01.12.2015 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner are quashed.

Shri Rajendra Patil 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.24741/2019 (SC/ST)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SHRI RAJENDRA PATIL S/O SRI. R.S.PATIL AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RON VILLAGE, RON HOBLI & TALUK, GADAG DISTRICT.

¶8

ALSO AT NO.94, 12^TH MAIN, 9^TH CROSS, RMV EXTENSION, BANGALORE - 560 094.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.M.B. CHANDRA CHOODA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, OFFICE OF D.C. KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE-01.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION, OFFICE OF AC, SOUTH SUB DIVISION, KANDHAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-01.

¶14

¶15

THE THASHILDAR, ANEKAL TALUK OFFICE OF THE THASHILDAR, ANEKAL TOWN, ANEKAL, BANGALORE.

¶16

SHRI.V. MANJUNATHA S/O LATE SHRI. VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDENT OF HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.

¶17

SHRI.H.P. VENKATESH FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED MAJOR RESIDENT OF HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.

¶18

SMT. NEELAMMA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED MAJOR RESIDENT OF HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.

¶19

SHRI. YELLAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶20

7(A) SMT. GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS D/O LATE YELLAPPA,

¶21

7(B) SRI. SAMPANGI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O LATE YELLAPPA,

¶22

¶23

7(C).	SMT. YASHODHAMMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS D/O LATE YELLAPPA,
7(D)	SRI. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O LATE YELLAPPA,
	ALL ARE RESIDING AT HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.
8.	SMT. MUNITHAYAMMA FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED MAJOR RESIDENT OF HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.
9.	SMT. KAVERAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS,
9(A)	SMT. RAMAKKA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS D/O LATE KAVERAMMA,
9(B)	SMT. GIRIJAMMA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS D/O LATE KAVERAMMA,
9(C)	SRI. JAGADEESH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA,
9(D)	SRI. NITESH AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
	S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA

¶24

¶25

ALL ARE RESIDING AT HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.

¶26

SHRI. MARAPPA FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED MAJOR RESIDENT OF HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.

¶27

... RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI.VENKAT SATYANARAYAN.A, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;

¶29

SRI. BASAVARAJA PATEL G.K, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO

¶30

R6, R8,R10 AND R7 (A-D), R9(A-D))

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER/JUDGMENT ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DATED 1.12.2015 PASSED IN CASE NO.SC.ST(A) 146/2012-13 ON THE FILE OF THE R-1 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITON;

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

The petitioner, who has purchased the land measuring 2 acres in Sy.No.317 (Old No.155/23) of Hulimangala village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk ( the subject property ), under the sale deed dated 07.02.1997, has impugned the following:

¶36

a) The order dated 20.12.2012 by the second respondent - Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub-Division, in Case No.K.SCST.(A) 44/2011-12 (Annexure-B).

¶37

b The order dated 01.12.2015 by the first respondent - Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban, Bengaluru in Case No. SC.ST(A) 146/2012-13 (Annexure-A).

¶38

The petitioner’s case is that the fourth

¶39

respondent, who has initiated proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner (the second respondent) under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and

¶40

¶41

Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, the ' PTCL Act’), has filed objections before the Deputy Commissioner (the first respondent) on 02.01.2014 categorically stating inter alia that the subject land is diverted to non-agricultural purposes under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the sale in favour of the petitioner would not be in violation of the terms of the PTCL Act, and as such, the second respondent’s order dated 20.12.2012 must be quashed allowing the appeal.

¶42

The Deputy Commissioner, who had reserved the appeal for orders, notwithstanding this categorical contention has dismissed the appeal without considering the afore. The petitioner thus contends that the Deputy Commissioner’s order suffers from nonapplication of mind. As regards the delay in approaching this Court, the petitioner’s case is that he could not have known about the Deputy

¶43

¶44

Commissioner’s order because the appeal was reserved without mentioning further date. He could not ascertain the disposal of the appeal until just prior to the commencement of the present proceedings. The petitioner’s case also is that there cannot be resumption and restoration of the subject property under Section 5 of the PTCL Act because of the delay in initiation of the proceedings, and the present proceeding is a successive proceeding after the land is resumed under the provisions of the PTCL Act in the year 1991.

¶45

Sri M.B. Chandra Chooda, the learned counsel for the petitioner, without any rebuttal by the respondents (including the fourth respondent), submits that Smt. Hanumakka was granted the subject property way back in the year 1947-48 and she has transferred this land in favour of Muniyappa, son of Muddanna in the year 1959. There are further transfers in the years 1961, 1971 and 1985. Sri Hanumakka has commenced

¶46

¶47

proceedings for resumption in the year 1987, which has culminated with restoration orders on 13.11.1991. On the demise of Smt. Hanumakka, her children and siblings have executed the sale deed dated 07.02.1997 in favour of the petitioner, and after necessary revenue proceedings and consequential change of khata for the subject property in his favour, the petitioner has obtained diversion of the land from agricultural to nonagricultural purposes on 12.05.2010. Despite the afore, the concerned respondent has commenced proceedings under Section 5 of the PTCL Act in the year 2011-12 and this has culminated in the impugned orders.

¶48

Sri M.B.Chandra Chooda, relying upon these circumstances canvasses different grounds, but this Court must intervene and set aside the impugned orders for the following reasons:

¶49

a) After the resumption in the year 1991, the subject property is sold in favour of the

¶50

¶51

petitioner in the year 1997 and proceedings are initiated in the year 2011-12 after more than 15 years of resumption; the delay is not explained, and this unexplained delay must be considered in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and another reported in (2020)14 SCC 232.

¶52

b) In the interregnum between the sale in favour of the petitioner and the commencement of the proceedings for resumption and restoration, the subject land is diverted from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes.

¶53

c) Significantly, the fourth respondent, who has commenced proceedings for resumption and restoration, is categorical in the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner that because the land is converted, he cannot impugn the

¶54

¶55

transfer in favour of the petitioner under the sale deed dated 07.02.1997. The Deputy Commissioner should have considered the merits of the claim for resumption and restoration in the light of this categorical submission and modulated necessary orders.

¶56

In the light of the afore, the petition is allowed, and the impugned orders dated 20.12.2012 [by the second respondent - Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub-Division, in Case No.K.SCST.(A) 44/201112] and dated 01.12.2015 [by the first respondent - Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban, Bengaluru in Case No. SC.ST(A) 146/2012-13] are quashed.

¶57

SD/JUDGE

¶58

Shri Rajendra Patil v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Rajendra Patil 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

Sri. S Hanumantha Vs the Deputy Commissioner

M R Seetharam Vs Sri K G Venkatesh

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