Allowed

Sri Krishnappa v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC27 Jun 2022WP/4185/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. The Court quashed the order due to delay in filing proceedings, applying the precedent set in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 29.03.2016 by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District, stands quashed even insofar as the extent of one acre purchased by the petitioner.

Sri Krishnappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.4185/2017 (SC/ST)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O. MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT BEGUR VILLAGE, SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR S, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶12

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION, DODDABALLAPUR, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, PODIUM BLOCK, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶13

¶14

SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O. OF LATE. MUNIMARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT VAGATA VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.

¶15

SRI. SHANMUGA W/O. OF LATE. MUNIMARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT VAGATA VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT -562 114.

¶16

SMT. MALATHI W/O. OF LATE. MUNINANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT 52/10, 2^ND CROSS, VENKATESHWARA TALKIES ROAD, DEVASANDRA, K R PURAM, BANGALORE - 560 036.

¶17

... RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.VENKAT SATYANARAYAN.A, HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRI. NARAYANA REDDY M., ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4; SRI. CHITHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.03.2016 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioner has called in question the order dated 29.03.2016 in No.LND.SCST.[A]25/2012-13 of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in the proceedings under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [for short, ‘ the PTCL Act ’].

¶24

The undisputed facts are that Sri

¶25

Munimarappa is granted an extent of three acres in Sy. No.37 of Mallimakanapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District [ the Subject Property ] and he has transferred this property on 16.12.1974 in favour of Sri Venkataramanappa. The purchaser, Sri Venkataramanappa, has transferred this subject property, which measures three acres, in two portions on 08.03.1976. The petitioner has purchased an extent of one acre and the fifth respondent has

¶26

¶27

purchased the other two acres. The Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur Sub-Division, Doddaballapur, by the order dated 14.09.2012 in No.PTCL.SR[H]6/2009-10, has rejected the respondent’s application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act i.e., the application by the legal heirs of the original grantee for restoration and restoration. The respondents have successfully carried the Assistant Commissioner's order in appeal under Section 5A of the PTCL Act successfully.

¶28

The petitioner has impugned the Deputy Commissioner's order insofar as an extent of one acre purchased under the sale deed dated 08.03.1976 and the fifth respondent has also called this order in question in the writ petition in W.P. No.25402/2016. This Court has disposed of the writ petition in W.P. No.25402/2016 on 23.11.2020 quashing the Deputy

¶29

¶30

Commissioner's order on the ground of delay. This Court's reasoning is as under:

¶31

“The legal heirs of the original grantee filed proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner for resumption of the land in the year 2009, which is after 30 years of the said Act coming into force and 35 years of the first sale i.e., in the year 1974, which cannot be a proceeding which is said to be instituted within a reasonable time. This is the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in 2017 SCC ONLINE 1862 which is further reiterated in the case of MR. VIVEK M HINDUJA AND OTHERS v. MR. ASWATHA AND OTHERS reported in 2019 Kar. L.J. 819 [SC] , which is followed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of SMT. NINGAMMA VS. THE TIBETIAN CHILDREN'S VILLAGE in WRIT APPEAL NO.4092 OF 2017 decided on 09.04.2019. "

¶32

¶33

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the

¶34

decision of this Court in the writ petition in W.P. No.25402/2016 must apply squarely and in that event the petitioner must be favoured. Hence the following:

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

[a] The petition is allowed;

¶37

[b] The order dated 29.03.2016 in No.LND.SCST.[A]25/2012-13 by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, stands quashed even insofar as the extent of one acre purchased by the petitioner in Sy. No.37 of Mallimakanapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

AN/-

Sri Krishnappa v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Krishnappa 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

M. R. Krishnappa Vs Sri.a J Jassawala

Smt B Ramamani Vs Sri M Paparaju

The Hassan District Co-Operative Vs the Joint Registrar

Sri Syed Pyaru Vs Sri D .R Raju

Dr Shivashankara Murthy Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

Smt Patalamma Vs the State of Karnataka