Allowed

Sri. Muddegowda v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2022WP/9293/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed orders restoring agricultural land to a scheduled caste community under the SC & ST Act. The court held the proceedings were hopelessly barred by limitation, citing a 16-year delay between the sale of land and the initial application for restoration, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 09.01.2017 and 24.02.2014 quashed on the ground that proceedings were hopelessly barred by limitation.

Sri. Muddegowda Vs the Deputy… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO.9293/2017 (SC/ST)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. MUDDEGOWDA S/O. LATE SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,

¶8

SMT. JAYAMMA W/O. JOGIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶9

SRI. MUDDEGOWDA S/O. LATE LINGANNA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶10

SRI. L. NINGU S/O. LINGANNA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶11

SRI. JAVAREGOWDA S/O. LATE LINGANNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶12

SMT. TAYAMMA W/O. LATE SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶13

PETITIONER NO.1 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT VADDARAHALLI,

¶14

¶15

KOPPALA VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, TALUK AND DISTRICT MANDYA.

¶16

...PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. VEERESHA K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR H.B., ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571401.

¶20

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANDYA SUB-DIVISION, MANDYA-571401.

¶21

SMT. DODDAMMA W/O. LATE MUTTAIAH, MAJOR, R/AT DODDAGARUDANAHALLI VILLAGE, BASARALU HOBLI, TALUK AND DISTRICT: MANDYA-571401.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. VENKATASATYA NARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2;

¶24

VIDE ORDER DATED 04.01.2022 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IN CASE NO.PTCL:06/2014 DATED 09.01.2017 AT ANNEXURE-D. ALSO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN CASE NO.PTCL:07/0102 DATED 24.02.2014.

¶26

¶27

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

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Present petition is filed by the petitioners

¶30

seeking following relief;

¶31

“Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 in case No.PTCL.06/2014 dated 09.01.2017 produced at Annexure-D.Also quash the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 in case No.PTCL.07/01-02 dated 24.02.2014.”

¶32

It is the case of the petitioners that land

¶33

bearing Sy.No.94 measuring 3 acres situated at Biliguli village, Mandya Taluk was granted to one Sri.Muttaiah in terms of the order No.CDR 98/63-94 dated 22.05.1964 for upset price. A saguvali Chit in this regard was also issued to the said Muttaiah. In terms of deed of sale dated 26.09.1965, the said Muttaiah conveyed the aforesaid land in favour of one Sri.Linganna, who is the grandfather of petitioner

¶34

¶35

Nos.1 and 2, father of petitioner Nos.3 to 5 and father-in-law of petitioner No.6. Thereafter, in the year 1981-82 the said grantee-Muttaiah had initiated the proceedings before the 2^nd respondent alleging violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition 0fn Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. (hereinafter referred to as SC & ST Act). The respondent No.2 by order dated 26.02.1983 passed in STL No.21/1981-82 had allowed the said application directing restoration of land to the original grantee-Sri.Muttaiah. Being aggrieved by the same, Sri.Linganna had filed appeal before the respondent No.1 in Appeal No.PTCL No.62/84-85. The said appeal was also dismissed on 28.12.1990. Being aggrieved by the same, the said Linganna preferred the writ petition in W.P. No.3334/1991 which petition was allowed and matter was remanded back to respondent no.2 for fresh consideration on

¶36

¶37

04.09.1995. That after the remand, the respondent No.2 allowed the application once again, constraining the said Linganna to file an appeal before respondent No.1 in appeal No.PTCL No.13/1997, the said appeal was allowed on 08.12.2000 and remanding the matter back to the respondent No.2 for consideration.

¶38

Being aggrieved by the said remand order, the grantee preferred writ petition in W.P. No.35933/2001 which was dismissed. Therafter, the respondent No.2 by an order dated 24.02.2014 passed in PTCL No.7/2001-02 allowed the application as per Annexure-C. During the pendency of the case in PTCL No.7/2001-02 the purchaser -Linganna had passed away leaving behind his legal representatives. Being aggrieved by the same, the legal representatives of the said Linganna filed an appeal before the respondent No.1 in case No.PTCL 6/2014.

¶39

¶40

The said appeal was dismissed by the respondent No.1 by an order dated 09.01.2017 confirming the order passed by the respondent no.2. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶41

Sri.Veeresha K, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition submits that impugned orders are unsustainable and same are hopelessly barred by limitation.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232 and also relied upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in W.P.No.52674/2014 dated 18.02.2022 between Sri.Mohsin Ali Vakil vs. State of Karnataka and others. Thus, he submits that

¶43

¶44

grant was originally made on 22.05.1964 and first sale deed was executed on 26.09.1965. The application for restoration of the land alleging violations of provisions of the Act was made during the year 1981-82 that is after lapse of 16 years. Thus, he submits that in view of law laid down in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra) the proceedings before respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 were hopelessly barred by limitation. Hence, seeks for allowing of the writ petition.

¶45

Learned HCGP does not dispute aforesaid legal position of the matter. That admittedly the grant was made on 22.05.1964 in favour of Muttaiah. The said Muttaiah had sold the subject property in terms of registered deed dated 26.09.1965. The proceedings were initiated before the respondent No.2 under KPTCL Act in the year 1981-82. Therefore, there is a

¶46

¶47

delay of about 16 years. In view of the law laid in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra) petition deserves to be allowed on the sole ground of proceedings initiated before the respondent No.2 by the original grantee were not within reasonable time. Accordingly, the petition allowed. The order dated 09.01.2017 passed by the respondent No.1 at Annexure-D and order dated 24.02.2014 passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-C are quashed.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Sri. Muddegowda v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Muddegowda 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri N Venkata Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Vijayraj Vs Government of Karnataka

Smt. Chandramma Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Union of India Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Kuresha Bee Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Raghavendra R Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike