Dismissed

Sri. M.M. Mahadev v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2022WP/892/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Singles judge bench dismissed a writ petition challenging orders under the PTCL Act regarding a land sale. The court held that liberty reserved by the Supreme Court does not permit re-agitation of issues already decided by the Division Bench.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the orders of the Special Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner is dismissed.

Sri. M.M. Mahadev Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF JULY 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.892/2017 (SC/ST)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI. M.M. MAHADEV S/O LATE MADAIAH L M AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.176 5^TH CROSS, 1^ST MAIN SRINIVASANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 050.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SANKET M YENAGI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT 5^TH FLOOR, M S BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶12

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

¶15

SMT. NANJAMMA W/O LATE CHINNAPPA MAJOR,

¶16

SMT PADMAMMA W/O GOVINDAPPA MAJOR,

¶17

SRI VENKATASWAMY S/O LATE CHINNAPPA, MAJOR RESPONDENTS NO. 4 TO 6 ARE R/AT MARIAPPANAPALYA KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK - 560 060.

¶18

SRI VENKATASWAMY S/O LATE JUTTA BOGI MAJOR,

¶19

SRI NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA MAJOR

¶20

RESPONDENTS NO. 7 & 8 RESIDING AT NAGADEVANAHALLI KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK- 560 060.

¶21

... RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.VENKAT SATYANARAYAN.A, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SMT. SIRI RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR

¶23

SRI. SARAVANA S, ADVOCATE FOR R4, R7 AND R8; R5 AND R6 ARE SERVED)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 1.7.2002 PASSED IN NO. SC.ST(A) 36/98-99 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL DEPUTY

¶25

¶26

COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT AT ANNEXUREJ; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.8.1997 PASSED IN CASE NO. KSC.ST.221:95/96 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE AT ANNEXURE-H.

¶27

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

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

The petitioner, whose father purchased the land measuring 2 acres in Sy.No.42, Block No.47 of Mallathahalli village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk [ the subject property ], has impugned the following orders:

¶30

a) The order dated 29.08.1997 in Proceedings No.KSC.ST.221:95/96 (Annexure-H);

¶31

b) The subsequent order dated 01.07.2002 by the Special Deputy Commissioner in the Proceedings under Section 5A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (For short, the ‘PTCL Act’) (Annexure-J)

¶32

¶33

The petitioner’s challenge to these orders in the present petition is not the first challenge and in fact, he was before this Court challenging these very orders in W.P. No.12622/2003. This writ petition is dismissed on 27.5.2003. The petitioner’s writ appeal as against these orders under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act in W.A. No.5640/2003 is dismissed without condoning the delay after a brief reference to the circumstances leading to the appeal. The petitioner successfully carried the Division Bench’s order to the Hon’ble Supreme Court inasmuch as his petition in SLP (C) 8602/2004 was favoured condoning the delay and remitting the writ appeal for reconsideration in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing.

¶34

The Division Bench has heard a learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner as also the learned Counsel for the respondents, and by order dated 15.04.2010 has again dismissed the writ appeal

¶35

¶36

on merits. The petitioner has challenged this order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.19331/2010. The Supreme Court has dismissed the petition, but has left open the question of law raised by the petitioner. The Supreme Court’s order dated 26.07.2010 in the aforesaid Special Leave Petition reads as under :

¶37

“The special leave petition is dismissed.

¶38

However, the question of law sought to be raised in the present petition is left open.”

¶39

4. Sri Sanket M Yenagi, the learned counsel for

¶40

the petitioner, after taking this Court through the circumstances leading to the present petition, submits that the petitioner can call in question the impugned orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Special Deputy Commissioner because of the liberty reserved by

¶41

the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He submits that the petitioner right through has been contending that the first sale by the wife of the grantee, Smt.Yellamma, wife

¶42

¶43

of Jutta Bhovi in favour of the petitioner’s vendor on 22.06.1964, was after lapse of ten years from the date of grant and was in favour of a member of the Scheduled Caste and therefore, neither the first sale nor the subsequent sale in favour of his father would be in violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act. The questions related thereto are left open to be decided by this Court and as such the present petition.

¶44

This Court is not persuaded to opine that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reserved liberty to the petitioner to reagitate the very same issues as are decided by the Division Bench. The Division Bench in its order dated 15.04.2010 has considered even the merits of the submission against the sale after a period of ten years from the grant would not be hit by the provisions of the PTCL Act. If the first sale is void, the subsequent sale would also be void. The Division Bench’s order in this regard reads as under:

¶45

¶46

"9. The facts stated earlier that 2 acres of land in Sy. No. 42, Block No.47 situated at Mallathhalli village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk was granted in favour of Jutta Bhovi on 10.02.1953 and saguvali Chit was issued on 01.05.1953 are not disputed. Though the non-alienation period was mentioned as 10 years in the Saguvali Chit, to be noted that as per Rule 43(8) of the Land Grant Rule existing in the year 1953, the non alienation period is for 20 years. In view of Rule 43(8) of the Land Grant Rules, Rules always prevail over any such entry made in the Certificate of Grant. Hence, it is clear that the land granted to Jutta Bhovi cannot be alienated for a period of 20 years. It is not in dispute that 2 acres of land was granted by the State Government of Jutta Bhovi who belongs to a weaker Section of the Society which is the reason for imposing the condition that the land shall not be alienated for a period of 20 years."

¶47

¶48

The Division Bench has considered the very grounds urged in this Court, and the liberty does not enable a reconsideration. Therefore, the petition stands dismissed.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

Sri. M.M. Mahadev v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. M.M. Mahadev 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri N Janardhan Vs Smt Swetha N

Suryodaya Infra Projects (I) Private Limited Vs Tenova India Private Limited

Sri. G.N. Rajashekar Vs Sri. G.R. Girish

Smt. S. Premalatha Vs the Deputy Registrar of Co. Op Societies

Rajendra Vs the State of Karnataka

Arun Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka