Allowed

Sri Syed Hameedulla Hassan v. Sri Bheemaiah

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2022WP/41031/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition challenging recovery of agricultural lands based on an alleged contravention of the Karnataka SC/ST Lands Act. The Court held that authorities cannot enforce Section 4(2) without first determining if the grantee belonged to a Scheduled Caste or Tribe, quashing orders that failed to make this finding.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 14.12.2012 and 2.6.2014 quashed; matter remitted to Assistant Commissioner for reconsideration after affording hearing opportunities to parties.

Sri Syed Hameedulla Hassan Vs Sri… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO.41031/2016 (SC/ST)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI SYED HAMEEDULLA HASSAN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O MIR NAKHI ALI R/AT ALIPURA VILLAGE THONDEBAVI HOBLI GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK-561 208.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI S. KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI BHEEMAIAH

¶12

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

¶13

1(A) SMT. GANGAMMA W/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶14

1(B) SMT. GANGAMMA W/O LATE GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶15

1(C) SRI SHASHIKUMAR S/O LATE GANGAIAH MINOR - REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. GANGAMMA.

¶16

1(D) SRI MANJUNATHA S/O LATE GANGAIAH

¶17

¶18

MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. GANGAMMA.

¶19

1(E) SRI NAGARAJU S/O LATE BHEEMAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶20

R-1(A) TO (E) ARE RESIDING AT DODDAMALLEKERE VILLAGE THONDEBAVI HOBLI GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK-561 208.

¶21

(R-1(A) TO (E) AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 14.03.2019)

¶22

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562 101.

¶23

SRI ALIMELI SHEKAR S/O MADAVAYYA ACHARI MAJOR R/AT NO.616/2, 31ST CROSS, 10TH MAIN , 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 011.

¶24

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562 101.

¶25

...RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI P.D. SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1(A TO E); SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-2 & R-4; SRI M. JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.12.2012 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND THE ORDER DATED 2.6.2014 PASSED

¶28

¶29

BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.

¶30

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

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

The lands bearing Sy.No.45/1 measuring 3 acres 38 guntas, Sy.No.48/5 measuring 3 acres 34 guntas and Sy.No.45/9 measuring 3 acres 34 guntas all situated at Doddamallekere village, Thondebavi Hobli, Chikkaballapur District, were granted to the private respondent herein vide order dated 25.3.1981. The subject lands were conveyed to the petitioner through a registered sale deed dated 25.6.2010. The private respondent filed an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short `Act') alleging that the subject lands were conveyed to the petitioner in contravention of Section 4(2) of the Act.

¶33

The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 14.12.2012 resumed and restored the subject lands after holding that the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner was in contravention of Section 4(2) of the Act, against which, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 5 of the Act before the

¶34

¶35

Deputy Commissioner concerned. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, against which, the present writ petition is filed.

¶36

The learned appearing for the petitioner submits that the Assistant Commissioner has not given a categorical finding that the original grantee belonged to scheduled caste/scheduled tribe community having observed that the grantee either belongs to Buduga Jangama or Moolasanyasi community. Hence, he submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 without recording the categorical finding that grantee belongs to the scheduled caste/scheduled tribe community is not sustainable in law.

¶37

The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents No.2 and 4 submits that the Authorities have rightly passed the impugned orders since the subject lands were sold in contravention of Section 4(2) of the Act.

¶38

I have examined the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶39

¶40

A perusal of the order dated 14.12.2012 passed by the 2nd respondent indicates that the 2nd respondent has not observed that the grantee either belongs to Buduga Jangama or Moolasanyasi community. However, the Assistant Commissioner has not given a finding that the said castes are declared as scheduled caste or scheduled tribe as enumerated under the provisions of the Constitution of India. Hence, in the absence of any finding that the grantee belonged to scheduled caste/scheduled tribe, the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner as well as the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner are not sustainable in law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶43

ii) The impugned order dated 14.12.2012 passed by 2nd respondent vide Annexure-A and the order dated 2.6.2014 passed by the 3rd respondent vide Annexure-B are hereby quashed.

¶44

iii) The matter is remitted to the 2nd respondent - Assistant Commissioner for reconsideration of the application

¶45

¶46

submitted by the 1st respondent under Section 5 of the Act and pass appropriate order in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to the petitioner as well as to the 1st respondent.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

bkm

Sri Syed Hameedulla Hassan v. Sri Bheemaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Syed Hameedulla Hassan v. Sri Bheemaiah

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

Suraj Kumar Jain Vs Department of Town and Country Planning

Mr Jaya Moolya Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Laxmi Vs the Mangaluru City Corporation

Savitha S Vs the Commissioner

Sri Sharath Shetty Vs the Municipal Commissioner

Ravikiran M Vs State of Karnataka