Writ petition filed to quash orders resuming land sold in contravention of SC/ST Act. Court held land allotted via public auction not a 'granted land' under Act, hence Act inapplicable, and vindicated petitioners.
Writ petition allowed; impugned orders of respondents quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO.36957 OF 2015 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
| 1 . | SRI M LOKESH S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, |
|---|---|
| 2 . | SRI MOTAPPA S/O DODDAVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, |
| 3 . | SRI M NARAYANASWAMY S/O MOTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, |
| 4 . | SHRI NARASIMHAIAH S/O LATE MOTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, |
| (BY |
RESONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT GANGAVARA CHOWDAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 562129. ... PETITIONERS SRI AJAY PRABHU, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B S SACHIN, ADVOCATE) |
| AND | : |
| 1 . | THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, 562129. |
| 2 . | THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER |
2
DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION, DODDABALLAPUR 561203
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 562129.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT N ANITHA, HCGP FOR R1 & R2 SRI T R RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNX-A THE ORDERS DT.21.7.2015 PASSED BY THE R-1 BY CONFIRMING THE ORDERS OF THE R-2 IN ORDER DT.23.1.2010 VIDE ANNX-E AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
The land bearing old Sy. No.149 new Sy. No.227 measuring 4 acres situated at Somathhalli Village, Channarayapatna Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk was granted in favour of petitioner No.2 vide grant certificate dated 23.1.1966.
3
submitted that respondent Nos.3 to 5 are not the legal representatives of original grantee - petitioner No.2 and as such, the application filed by the said respondents was not maintainable. He further submits that the
4
subject land is not a granted land as defined under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act since the same was allotted to petitioner No.2 in an auction for an upset price.
reported in AIR 2008 SC 1438.
5
dispute whether the land was granted in favour of petitioner No.2 or to the father of respondent Nos.3 to 5 cannot be adjudicated in a proceeding under Section 5 of the Act.
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is allowed.
(ii) Impugned order dated 21.7.2015 passed by respondent No.1 at Annexure-A and the impugned order
6
dated 23.1.2010 passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure - E are hereby quashed.
Sd/JUDGE
BS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Act applies to land allotted via public auction for an upset price as a 'granted land' under Section 3(1)(b)
Whether the dispute over legal representation of the original grantee can be adjudicated under Section 5 of the Act
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.K.Muniraju Vs/ State of Karnataka and othersFollowed¶33
B.K.Muniraju Vs/ State of Karnataka and others, AIR 2008 SC 1438 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
SRI M LOKESH AND OTHERS
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
SRI NAGARAJU AND OTHERS
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
