Disposed

Smt Rathnamma v. the Assistant Commissioner

Karnataka HC1 Apr 2022WP/7277/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maidwrit petition challenging Assistant Commissioner's order under PTCL Act. Court disposed of petition allowing alternative remedy before Deputy Commissioner but granted eight-week injunction against coercive possession recovery measures.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with liberty to approach Deputy Commissioner under Section 5A of PTCL Act; coercive measures for recovery of possession restrained for eight weeks.

Smt Rathnamma Vs the Assistant Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.7277/2022 (SC/ST)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SMT RATHNAMMA W/O U MUNIREDDY SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HER LEGAL HEIR SRI M.DEVENDRA S/O LATE U.MUNIREDDY AGED 62 YEARS R/A NO.2453, II STAGE BANASHANKARI BANGALORE - 560 070.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SANJAYA KUMAR K N, ADVOCATE AND SRI. B.N. SHIVANNA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶12

K.RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED 60 YEARS R/A UTTARAHALLI VILLAGE BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK - 560 068.

¶13

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE/ STATION HOUSE OFFICER

¶14

¶15

KAGGALIPURA POLICE STATION KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 560 068.

¶16

THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE - 560 001. MUNISHAMAPPA ALIAS MUNISHAMAIAH S/O LATE THIMMAIAH SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HIS LEGAL HEIR

¶17

RAMESH S/O LATE MUNIRAJU (GRAND SON OF MUNISHAMAPPA) ALIAS MUNISHAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT SARAKKI SHAKAMABARI NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 078.

¶18

... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.K. HEMA KUMAR, AGA FOR R1, R3 & R4)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE DATED 05.10.2007 IN CASE KSC/ST/(S) 34/2006-07 MARKED ATVIDE ANNEXURE-B; ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS BY REMITTING BACK THE MATTER TO LEARNED ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE, TO GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE PETITIONER; DIRECT THE R-3 KAGGALIPURA POLICE NOT TO CALL THE PETITIONER UNNECESSARY TO THE POLICE STATION IN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE DUE PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED UNDER LAW REPORTED IN (2014)2 SC PAGE 1 LALITHAKUMARI VS. STATE OF U.P.

¶21

¶22

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

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The petitioner, who asserts ownership of land measuring 4 acres in old Sy No.113, new Sy No.179 of Hutri Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk [ the subject property ], has impugned the Assistant Commissioner’s Order dated 05.10.2007 in K:SC:ST[S] 34/2006-07 [Annexure-B], a proceeding under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes [Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands] Act, 1978 [for short, ‘PTCL Act’ ]. The petitioner has also sought for remand of the proceedings to the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Taluk to decide the fifth respondent’s claim for resumption and restoration of the subject property after being given due opportunity to the petitioner.

¶25

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner

¶27

submits that the petitioner was not aware of the proceeding before the Assistant Commissioner or the impugned order until the jurisdictional Police called upon him to visit them and apprised him of the orders for restoration and resumption. The applicant before the Assistant Commissioner has deliberately furnished the petitioner’s address incorrectly and the petitioner is consequentially not served with the notice of the proceedings. There is denial of opportunity in deciding on the question of resumption and restoration. Therefore this Court must intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶28

Government Advocate points out that the petitioner does not deny that there is alternative remedy for the petitioner under Section 5A of the PTCL Act and the petitioner must approach the Deputy Commissioner in

¶29

¶30

exercise of such remedy. He argues that the Deputy Commissioner, if an appeal is preferred, can revisit the whole question of not only whether the petitioner is duly served but also whether there could be resumption and restoration of the subject property.

¶31

The merits of the rival submissions are considered in the light of the fact that the petitioner has impugned the order which is passed more than fourteen years back. The circumstances that could justify this length of time will have to be examined as a question of fact apart from the other circumstances. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner must necessarily avail alternative remedy with appropriate application for condonation of delay and the question of facts must be appreciated first in such alternative remedy. However, the petitioner must be entitled for interim protection as the petitioner’s application for interim protection will have to be considered after the

¶32

¶33

condonation of delay if the appeal is filed. Hence the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

[a] The petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy under Section 5A of the PTCL Act subject to all just exceptions in law;

¶36

[b] The Authorities are called upon not to take any coercive measures for recovery of possession of the subject property pursuant to the impugned order for a period of eight

¶37

[8] weeks from today.

¶38

SD/JUDGE

¶39

AN/-

Smt Rathnamma v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Rathnamma v. the Assistant Commissioner

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/S Tra and Company Vs Additional Chief Secretary to Government

M/S. Abhiram Infra Projects Private Limited Vs the Commissioner

Etisalat Software Solutions Private Limited Vs the Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer

Sri Manukuppe Chikkavenkataiah Vs State of Karnataka

M/S. Sri Giri Bar and Restaurant Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Yojaka (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Asst Commissioner of Income-Tax