Allowed

Smt G M Pushpa v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC31 Oct 2023WP/17452/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227, allowed a writ petition filed against the quashing of a petitioners stay application. The court set aside the non-speaking interim rejection order, restored the stay on the execution of a revenue order regarding land restoration, and directed the Deputy Commissioner to dispose of the pending appeal within six months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the stay application was set aside. The stay on the operation of the order dated 14.02.2014 was restored pending disposal of the appeal. The appeal was directed to be disp

Smt G M Pushpa Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:38641 WP No. 17452 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 17452 OF 2018 (SCST)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT G M PUSHPA W/O T KUMAR, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O TALAK VILLAGE, CHALLAKRE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 543

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. JAYAPRAKASH R V., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT CHITRADURGA-577 501

¶13

Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIRADURGA SUB DIVISON, CHITRADURGA -577 501

¶15

THIMMANNA S/O KARADI THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶16

THIPPERUDRAPPA S/O KARADI THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶17

JAYANNA S/O KARADI THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶18

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:38641 WP No. 17452 of 2018

¶19

RESPONDENT Nos. 3-5 ARE R/O VALMIKINAGARA, LAST CROSS, CHALLAKERE TOWN, CHALLAKRE, CHITRADURGA DIST-577 543

¶20

NARASIMHA REDDY S/O RAMANNA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR T N RAMESH, S/O LATE NARASIMHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF MYSORE REGIONAL OFFICE, CHURCH CIRCLE, TUMKUR-572 101 …RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI. V. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAVI H.K., ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31.1.2018 PASSED ON THE APPLICATION FOR STAY FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER IN CASE NO. SCPTL(A)-1/2014-15 ON THE FILE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA VIDE ANNEX-G.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 31.01.2018, passed by respondent No.1 rejecting the application to stay the execution and operation of the

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:38641 WP No. 17452 of 2018

¶27

order dated 14.02.2014, passed by respondent No.2, has filed this writ petition.

¶28

Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:

¶29

Petitioner had purchased the land from one P.Narasimha Reddy under registered sale deed dated 20.08.1987. The vendor of the petitioner purchased the land in question under registered sale deed dated 28.11.1966. Thimmanna and Thipperudrappa, respondents No.3 and 4, filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act for restoration of granted land. Respondent No.2 after holding an enquiry, allowed the application filed by respondents No.3 and 4. The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.2, preferred an appeal under Section 5A of the PTCL Act before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 initially granted an order of status quo vide order dated 14.08.2014. The petitioner filed an application to stay the operation of the order passed by the respondent No.2

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:38641 WP No. 17452 of 2018

¶32

dated 14.02.2014, pending disposal of the appeal. The respondent No.1, without assigning any reasons, rejected the said application. Hence this writ petition.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate and learned counsel for respondents No.3 to 5.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1 initially granted an interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo . The respondents No.3 to 6 herein, taking advantage of the order passed by the respondent No.2 herein, tried to dispossess the petitioner from the property in question. Hence the petitioner was forced to file an application to stay the execution and operation of the order passed by respondent No.2 herein. He submits that the respondent No.1 without assigning any reasons, has rejected the said application. The impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 is not a speaking order. He further submits that this Court vide order dated 09.08.2018, granted an interim order staying

¶35

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:38641 WP No. 17452 of 2018

¶36

the operation of the order dated 14.02.2014, passed by respondent No.2. He submits that the said order may be continued till the disposal of the appeal by respondent No.1. Hence on these grounds, prays to allow the writ petition.

¶37

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents No.3 to 5 submits that a direction be issued to respondent No.1 to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible and prayed to dispose of the writ petition.

¶38

Perused the records and considered the

¶39

submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶40

The petitioner purchased the land from one P.Narasimha Reddy under registered sale deed dated 20.08.1987. The respondents No.3 to 5 herein, as legal representatives of original grantee, filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act before respondent No.2 herein for restoration of granted land. Respondent No.2 after due enquiry, allowed the said application, declaring

¶41

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:38641 WP No. 17452 of 2018

¶42

the registered sale deeds dated 20.08.1987 and 28.11.1996, as null and void and ordered for restoration of possession. Petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent No.2 herein, preferred an appeal under Section 5A of the PTCL Act before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 vide order dated 14.08.2014, passed an

¶43

order of status quo till the next date of hearing. The petitioner filed an application dated 31.01.2018, to stay the operation of the order dated 14.02.2014, passed by the respondent No.2 herein. But, respondent No.1 without assigning any reasons, in a single sentence, has rejected

¶44

the said application on the same day i.e., 31.01.2018. The said order passed by respondent No.1 is not a speaking order. Hence on this ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Further, this Court vide order dated 09.08.2018, passed an interim order staying the operation of the order dated 14.02.2014, passed by the respondent No.2 herein, Assistant Commissioner, Chitradurga and the said interim order is in force till day. If the said order is continued till the disposal

¶45

¶46

NC: 2023:KHC:38641 WP No. 17452 of 2018

¶47

of the appeal, no inconvenience would be caused to respondents No.3 to 6.

¶48

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass

¶49

the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

The writ petition is allowed.

¶52

The impugned order dated 31.01.2018, is set aside and the application filed by the petitioner dated 31.01.2018, is allowed and the operation of the order dated 14.02.2014, passed by respondent No.2, is stayed till the disposal of appeal.

¶53

As the appeal is of the year 2014, respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the appeal within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶54

SD/-

¶55

JUDGE

¶56

Smt G M Pushpa v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt G M Pushpa 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Branch Manager Vs Sri D P Yathiraj

Sri M Pillappa Vs Smt Bagya

Smt Chekkera J Shanthi Vs Sri Gudiyangada G Nachappa

Smt Koushalaya Vs Tribhuvan Tilak Trust

K. Hanumanthappa Vs State of Karnataka

Devegowda S/O Chikkarachegowda Vs Belwadi Grama Panchayathi