Allowed

Shri N Venkata Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2022WP/993/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition quashing orders directing resumption of land under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, on grounds that the application was filed beyond the reasonable period.

What did the court decide?

Quashed orders passed by Respondents No. 2 and No. 3 directing resumption and restoration of the land.

Shri N Venkata Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 993 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO.993 OF 2022 (SC/ST)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHRI N. VENKATA REDDY S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT AARIKUNTE VILLAGE, RONURU HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563135.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. K.R.NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VISHWANATHA SETTY V., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563101.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR SUB-DIVISION, KOLAR -563101.

¶14

SRI. ASHOK, S/O VENKATARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶15

¶16

WP No. 993 of 2022

¶17

SMT. RATHNAMMA, W/O SRI. RAMAPPA @ SRIRAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶18

SRI. CHIKKA VENKATESHAPPA, S/O LATE MUNIVENKATA BOVI, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

¶19

SRI. VENKATARAMAPPA, S/O LATE MUNIVENKATA BOVI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶20

SMT. AKKAMMA, W/O SRI. YELLAPPA, D/O SRI. MUNIVENKATA BHOVI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶21

SRI. VENKATARAYAPPA, S/O LATE MUNIVENKATS BOVI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 9 ARE R/AT J.V.COLONY VILLAGE, J. THIMMASANDRA POST, KASABA HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563135.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. VENKATASATYA NARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. LOKESH MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R4, R6 TO R9; NOTICE SERVED ON R5 AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN CASE NO.PTCL/20/2017 DATED 17.06.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-E SO ALSO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN CASE No.LND/SC/ST(SVP)/36/2014-15 DATED 19.01.2017

¶25

¶26

WP No. 993 of 2022

¶27

VIDE ANNEXURE-D IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.8, NEW NO.8P25 MEASURING 3 ACRES SITUATED AT RAMAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶28

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

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The present petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by;

¶31

a) the order in case No.LND/SC/ST(SVP)/36/2014-15 dated 19.01.2017 at Annexure-D passed by the respondent No.3 and

¶32

b) the order in case No.PTCL/20/2017 dated 17.06.2019 at Annexure-E passed by the respondent No.2

¶33

in and by which land in Sy.No.8, New Sy.No.8/P25 measuring 3 acres situated at Ramapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District is directed to be resumed and restored in favour of respondent No.4. It is submitted that land bearing

¶34

¶35

WP No. 993 of 2022

¶36

Sy.No.8/P25 measuring 3 acres situated at Ramapura Village, Kasaba Hobli Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District was originally granted to one MunivenkataBhovi in grant proceedings

¶37

No.LND.43.1971-72.

¶38

Respondent No.4-Ashok, S/o Venkatarayappa filed an application before the respondent No.3 claiming that Munivenkata Bhovi had sold 1 acre 20 guntas in favour of Smt.Rathnamma-respondent No.5 on 22.4.1994. Respondent No.5 had in turn sold the same in favour of the petitioner on 20.01.1997. Respondent No.4 initiated proceedings before the respondent No.3 in Case No.LND.SC.STSVP.36/201415 for alleged violation of Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (`PTCL Act' for short). Accepting the case of respondent No.4, respondent No.3 by order dated 19.01.2017 annulled

¶39

¶40

WP No. 993 of 2022

¶41

deeds of sale and directed resumption of subject land

¶42

and restoration of the same to the original grantee.

¶43

Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner

¶44

preferred an appeal before the respondent No.2 in case No.PTCL/20/2017 and by order dated 17.06.2019 said appeal came to be dismissed confirming earlier order passed by the respondent No.3. Being aggrieved, petitioner is before this court.

¶45

Sri.K.R.Nagaraja, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition submits that on the face of it application filed by the respondent No.4 before the respondent No.3 was not maintainable as the same was filed after expiry of 20 years from the date of first deed of sale. He further submits even taking into consideration second deed of sale application was filed after expiry of 17 years. He relies upon the Judgment

¶46

in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI Vs

¶47

¶48

WP No. 993 of 2022

¶49

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232 and also Judgment of the Coordinate Bench in the case of G.Nataraj Vs State of Karnataka and others in W.P.No.12161/2019 by order dated 12.11.2021 this court considering 11 years to be unreasonable time had allowed writ petition and set aside the orders.

¶50

It is clear from the facts of the case that application for resumption of land was filed by respondent No.4 after lapse of 20 and 17 years respectively, from the dates of the first and second deed of sale referred to herein above. In that view of the matter there is atleast lapse of 17 years from the date of second deed of sale.

¶51