Partly allowed

Smt Patalamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Jun 2022WP/6182/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed the writ petitions in part, quashing the Common Order dated 25.10.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The Court directed restoration of proceedings for reconsideration on merits, noting that the Deputy Commissioner failed to examine whether the petitioners or their ancestors had validly transferred the granted land under the PTCL Act before ordering forfeiture.

What did the court decide?

Common Order dated 25.10.2013 in cases SC.ST.[A] 57/2010-11 and SC.ST.[A] 64/2010-11 quashed; proceedings restored for reconsideration on merits by the Deputy Commissioner.

Smt Patalamma Vs the State of Karnataka — 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.6182/2014 (SC/ST)

¶6

C/W.

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.6190/2014 (SC/ST)

¶8

IN WP NO. 6182/2014

¶9

BETWEEN :

¶10

SMT. PATALAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS

¶11

1(A). SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS D/O LATE PATALAMMA,

¶12

SMT PUTTAMMA W/O DODDA PATALAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,

¶13

SMT. POOJAMMA (SINCE DECEASED BY LRS)

¶14

3(A) SRI RAVI S/O LATE CHIKKA PATALAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶15

3(B). SRI SHANTHA RAJU S/O LATE CHIKKA PATALAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶16

¶17

3(C). SRI NAGARAJU S/O LATE CHIKKA PATALAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 3(D). SRI HARISH S/O LATE CHIKKA PATALAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, 4. SMT GULLAMMA W/O LATE MUDALAGIRYAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 5. SMT THIPPAMMA W/O LATE KADE PATALAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 5 ALL ARE RESIDING AT DODDAGUBBI BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK-560036 BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BHADRINATH R, ADVOCATE) AND :

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶19

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT K G ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶20

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION K G ROAD, KANDAYA BHAVANA BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶21

¶22

TAHSILDAR BANGALORE EAST TALUK KRISHNARAJAPURAM BANGALORE DISTRICT - 560 036.

¶23

SRI VENKATACHALA @ VENKATESH REDDY S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶24

SRI RAMACHANDRA S/O LATE HUCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶25

SRI D P RAJASHEKARA S/O LATE PATALAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶26

SMT SAKAMMA W/O MUNIRAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶27

SMT GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶28

SRI MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶29

SRI CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶30

SRI DEEPU S/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶31

SRI G K KRISHNAPPA S/O MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,

¶32

¶33

RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 11 ARE RESIDING AT DODDAGUBBI VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI

¶34

BANGALORE EAST TALUK - 560 036.

¶35

... RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI.VENKAT SATYANARAYAN. A, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. H.NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R13; SRI. S. RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R11; SRI.ANUP SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R14; NOTICE SERVED ON R6, R7 & R10; NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT FOR R8, R9 & R12)

¶37

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE R-2/DY. COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DIST., IN CASE NO.SC.ST(A)57/2010-11 AS FOUND AT ANNEXURE-L AND ON THE FILE OF THE R-3/ASST. COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVSION, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-K; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.10.2013 IN SO FAR AS ONLY CASE NO.SC.ST(A)57/2010-11 PASSED BY THE R-2 AS FOUND AT ANNEXURE-L ONLY.

¶38

IN WP NO. 6190/2014

¶39

BETWEEN :

¶40

SMT. PATALAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS

¶41

1(A). SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS D/O LATE PATALAMMA,

¶42

SMT PUTTAMMA W/O DODDA PATALAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,

¶43

¶44

3.	SMT. POOJAMMA (SINCE DECEASED BY LRS)
3(A)	SRI RAVI S/O LATE CHIKKA PATALAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
3(B).	SRI SHANTHA RAJU S/O LATE CHIKKA PATALAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
3(C).	SRI NAGARAJU S/O LATE CHIKKA PATALAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
3(D).	SRI HARISH S/O LATE CHIKKA PATALAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
4.	SMT GULLAMMA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, W/O LATE MUDALAGIRYAPPA D/O LATE MUNIKEMPAIAH
5.	SMT THIPPAMMA W/O LATE KADE PATALAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
	PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 5 ALL ARE RESIDING AT DODDAGUBBI BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK-560036 BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT. .	.. PETITIONERS

¶45

(BY SRI. BHADRINATH R, ADVOCATE)

¶46

AND :

¶47

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY

¶48

¶49

VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶50

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT K G ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶51

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION K G ROAD, KANDAYA BHAVANA BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶52

THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE EAST TALUK KRISHNARAJAPURAM BANGALORE DISTRICT - 560 036.

¶53

SRI RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O LATE HUCHAMMA @ HUCHAPPA,

¶54

SRI D.P. RAJASHEKARA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O LATE PATALAPPA,

¶55

SRI MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O MARAPPA,

¶56

SRI CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O APPAYYANNA, RESPONDENTS NO. 5 TO 8 ALL ARE R/A DODDAGUBBI VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK 560036. ...RESPONDENTS

¶57

(BY SRI. VENKAT SATYANARAYAN. A, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4;

¶58

¶59

SRI. K.P. BHUVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R7; SRI. B.N. GOPALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R5, R6 & R8)

¶60

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE R- 2/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT IN CASE NO.SC.ST(A)64/2010-11 AS FOUND AT ANNEX-L AND ON THE FILE OF THE R-3/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE IN CASE NO.KSC/STI04/2009-10 AS FOUND AT ANNEX-K; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.10.2013 IN SO FOR AS ONLY CASE NO.SC.ST(A)64/2010-11 PASSED BY THE R-2 AS FOUND AT ANNEXURE-L ONLY.

¶61

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

¶62

O R D E R

¶63

The petitioners, who assert to be the legal heirs of Sri. Munikempa @ Sri. Munikempaiah, have challenged the Common Order dated 25.10.2013 in SC.ST. [A] 57/2010-11 and SC.ST. [A] 64/2010-11 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru. The Deputy Commissioner, by the impugned order, has set aside the Assistant Commissioner's Order dated 01.07.2010 in K.

¶64

¶65

SC.ST.104/2009-10 and directed the Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk, to take action to evict unauthorized occupants of the land in Sy. No.120 of Doddagubbi Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk [' the subject land' ] while ordering forfeiture of this land to the Government free from all encumbrances.

¶66

The Assistant Commissioner has allowed the petitioners' application for resumption and restoration of the subject land, but the Deputy Commissioner has interfered with the Assistant Commissioner's Order on the twin grounds that the petitioners have not produced any document to establish the grant in favour of Sri. Munikempa @ Sri. Munikempaiah and that a joint Legislature Committee has prepared a list of lands that have to be retrieved to the Government in Bengaluru District and the subject land is included in such list.

¶67

Sri. R. Bhadrinath, the learned counsel for

¶68

the petitioners, submits that the Deputy Commissioner

¶69

¶70

should have, in view of the repeated reiteration by this Court, called for the original records to ascertain whether there was any grant in favour of Sri. Munikempa @ Sri. Munikempaiah and then proceeded to examine whether there was any transfer in violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes [Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands] Act, 1978 [for short, 'the PTCL Act' ]. The failure has resulted in miscarriage of justice because the petitioners have been denied the benefit of the law.

¶71

Sri. R. Bhadrinath also submits that the private respondents assert sale deeds executed way back in the year 1991 and the subsequent transfer of sites in the subject property on the formation of a residential layout. The Deputy Commissioner is enjoined in law, in the event there is any failure by the Assistant Commissioner to properly exercise jurisdiction under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, to call for the original

¶72

¶73

records and to ascertain whether there is grant as contemplated under the provisions of the PTCL Act and a case is made out for resumption and restoration.

¶74

It is obvious on a reading of the impugned order that the Deputy Commissioner has premised his finding that the subject land must be resumed to the Government because the petitioners have not produced photocopies of the Grant Order and there is a certain report by the Joint Legislature Committee. The Deputy Commissioner's impugned order cannot be sustained if the salient as required under the provisions of the PTCL Act are not considered, and the proceedings must be restored to the Deputy Commissioner for

¶75

reconsideration strictly in accordance with law.

¶76

However, before parting, this Court must record that the petitioners contend that neither the grantees nor their ancestors have transferred the

¶77

¶78

subject land and the vendors under the sale deed dated 25.10.1991 could not have executed the sale deed transferring the subject land. Given the provisions of Section 5 of the PTCL Act which provide for initiation of the proceedings for resumption and restoration of a 'granted land' , either on an application by the interested person or on information given in writing by any person or suo motu , if the concerned is satisfied that there is transfer of a ' granted land ' and such transfer is null and void, the Deputy Commissioner, must while reconsidering the petitioner's claim for restoration, necessarily examine whether the application would be maintainable if the petitioners are categorical that neither they nor their ancestors have executed any sale deed. For the foregoing, the following:

¶79

ORDER

¶80

[a] The petitions are allowed in part; [b] The common order dated 25.10.2013 in SC.ST.[A] 57/2010-11 and

¶81

¶82

SC.ST.[A]64/2010-11 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru, are quashed and the proceedings restored for reconsideration on merits in the light of the observation above.

¶83

[c] The parties shall appear before the

¶84

Deputy Commissioner without further notice on 25.07.2022.

¶85

[d] If the parties do not appear, they shall waive the rights of further notice.

¶86

Sd/JUDGE

¶87

AN/-

Smt Patalamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Patalamma 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

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 Krishnappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Syed Pyaru Vs Sri D .R Raju

Dr Shivashankara Murthy Vs the Bangalore Development Authority