Allowed

Sri. Subbarayappa v. Sri.K.T.Sudarshan

Karnataka HC19 Jul 2023WP/28737/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition was filed by the brother of the original grantee challenging an order setting aside a land mutation. The High Court held that the Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to modify a restoration order or amend mutation records under the PTCL Act, dismissing the plea for modification but quashing the impugned orders without prejudice to other remedies.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 06.08.2014 by Assistant Commissioner and 20.03.2017 by Deputy Commissioner are quashed.

Sri. Subbarayappa Vs Sri.K.T.Sudarshan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:25089 WP No. 28737 of 2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 28737 OF 2017 (SC-ST)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SUBBARAYAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKAPPAIAH AGEDA BOUT 60 YEARS R/AT KUDUVATHI VILLAGE NANDI HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-562101

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.CHOKKA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.CHANDRASHEKAR SWAMY K B, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI.K.T.SUDARSHAN S/O LATE TULASIRAM AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.10, NEW HIGH SCHOOL ROAD V V PURAM BENGALURU - 560 004

¶14

SRI CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE ASHWATHANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT ANNESHWARA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:25089 WP No. 28737 of 2017

¶17

SRI P CHANNAPPA

¶18

S/O POOJAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT KUDAVATI VILLAGE NANDI HOBLI

¶19

CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 101

¶20

SRI NAGARAJU S/O LATE PILLAVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT KUDAVATI VILLAGE NANDI HOBLI

¶21

CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 101

¶22

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION CHIKKABALLAPURA

¶23

CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 101

¶24

SMT MUNIRATHNAMMA W/O M C NAGARAJ D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶25

SRI MOHAN S/O M C NAGARAJ

¶26

AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

¶27

SRI M N MANOJ S/O M C NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶28

RESPONDENT NOS.6 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT GEETA MANDIRA ROAD MALAPALLI CHINTAMANI TOWN CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563 125

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:25089 WP No. 28737 of 2017

¶31

SMT M N MANASA

¶32

D/O M C NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDING AT KUDUVATHI VILLAGE NANDI HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 101

¶33

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPUR-562 101

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI.H.S.SOMNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R.1; SRI.G.A.SRIKANTEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R.2; SRI.VENKATASATHYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R.5 AND R.10; SRI.V.RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R.9; R.3, R.4, R.6, R.7 AND R.8 ARE SERVED)

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 20.3.2017 PASSED IN R.A.[SC.ST] NO.26/2014-15 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLAPUR VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE IMPUGNED REVISED ORDER DTD:6.8.2014 PASSED BY THE R-5 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER IN CASE NO.PTCL [CHIKKA]105/2010-11 VIDE ANNEXURE-C BY ALLOWING THIS W.P. AND RESTORE THE ORDER DTD:11.10.2013 PASSED BY THE R-5 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER IN CASE NO.PTCL [CHIKKA]105/2010-11 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND THEREBY RESTORE THE LAND IN QUESTION IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER AND OTHERS AND ETC.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:25089 WP No. 28737 of 2017

¶39

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

¶40

ORDER

¶41

The captioned writ petition is filed by the brother of the original grantee feeling aggrieved by the impugned

¶42

order passed by respondent No.5 - Assistant

¶43

Commissioner vide Annexure-C.

¶44

Facts leading to the case are as under;

¶45

The petitioner claims that he is the brother of the original grantee - Narayanappa. The petitioner questioning the sale deed executed by him and his brother in favour of the purchasers has initiated proceedings seeking restoration of the land on the ground that the alienations made by him and his brother under the registered sale deed dated 16.11.1977 and under three different registered sale deed dated 31.05.2010 in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 4 are in contravention of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short "PTCL Act"). The respondent No.5 -Assistant

¶46

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:25089 WP No. 28737 of 2017

¶47

Commissioner has allowed the petition and ordered for restoration of the land in question. The purchasers did not choose to question the restoration order passed by respondent No.5 - Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, it is not in dispute that the order of restoration has attained finality.

¶48

The respondent No.5 - Assistant Commissioner having passed an order of restoration, however, passed the impugned order vide Annexure - C. Respondent No.5 - Assistant Commissioner has set aside the mutation effected under MR No.91/2013-14 and has ordered to mutate the name of Class-I heirs of the original grantee. The order of respondent No.5 - Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-C was taken in appeal before respondent No.10 - Deputy Commissioner by the petitioner. Respondent No.10 - Deputy Commissioner has dismissed the appeal. These orders are assailed by brother of the original grantee feeling aggrieved by the impugned order passed by respondent No.5 - Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-C.

¶49

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:25089 WP No. 28737 of 2017

¶50

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents and learned HCGP. I have given my anxious consideration to the impugned order passed by respondent No.5 - Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-C.

¶51

The short question that arise for consideration

¶52

is;

¶53

As to whether respondent No.5 - Assistant Commissioner suo moto had power to modify the restoration order and while doing so, could have set aside the mutation effected under MR No.91/2013-14?

¶54

My answer is emphatic no.

¶55

It is borne out from the records that pursuant

¶56

to the resumption order passed by respondent No.5 - Assistant Commissioner, the present petitioner, at whose instance the restoration was sought, approached revenue authorities to mutate his name under MR No.91/2013-14.

¶57

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:25089 WP No. 28737 of 2017

¶58

The petitioner's name was duly mutated along with other legal heirs. It appears that now there is a inter-se dispute between the Class-I heirs of the original grantee and the present petitioner, who claims to be the brother of the original grantee. Respondent No.5 - Assistant Commissioner invoking provisions of the "PTCL Act" has ventured to set-aside the mutation. I am of the view that such a recourse was not available to respondent No.5 - Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, the impugned order vide Annexure-C is found to be without jurisdiction under PTCL proceedings. The inter se dispute between the legal

¶59

heirs of the original grantee and the petitioner cannot be adjudicated and such a recourse is not permissible under the provisions of PTCL Act.

¶60

The legal heir of the original grantee i.e., respondent No.6 is claiming that she had instituted a suit against the purchasers in O.S.No.80/2011 and the said suit has ended in compromise and the purchasers have given up their claim over the land in question and

¶61

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:25089 WP No. 28737 of 2017

¶62

therefore, she contends that she alone is entitled to get the name mutated to the land in question. A reliance is also placed on a suit filed by the present petitioner herein seeking partition in O.S.No.159/2011. Referring to this plaint, respondent No.6 contends that the petitioner has never asserted that the granted land was also joint family ancestral properties and the same is evident from the pleadings in the said suit.

¶63

Be that as it may, the claim over the granted

¶64

land by the Class-I heir of the original grantee and by the brother of the petitioner cannot be subject matter of the proceedings under "PTCL Act". Respondent No.5 - Assistant Commissioner having ordered for resumption of the land had no jurisdiction in suo moto modifying the restoration order and further, had no jurisdiction to set-aside the mutation effected under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. If respondent No.6 feels aggrieved by the mutation effected by the Revenue Authorities, nothing prevents her from availing efficacious

¶65

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:25089 WP No. 28737 of 2017

¶66

remedy available under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. I am of the view that the impugned order passed by respondent No.5 as per Annexure-C is not sustainable. Respondent No.5 - Assistant Commissioner lacks inherent jurisdiction in setting aside the mutation by invoking the provisions of the "PTCL Act".

¶67

In view of the above discussions, I proceed to

¶68

pass the following;

¶69

ORDER

¶70

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶71

(ii) The impugned order dated 06.08.2014 passed by respondent No.5 - Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure - C and the impugned order dated 20.03.2017 passed by respondent No.10 - Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure - M are hereby quashed.

¶72

(iii) However, these orders will not come in the way of respondent No.6 in availing remedy available to her in accordance with

¶73

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:25089 WP No. 28737 of 2017

¶74

law. In the event an appeal is filed by respondent No.6 assailing the certification of MR H.No.91/2013-14 within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, respondent No.6 is entitled for the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

¶75

(iv) Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.

¶76

Sd/JUDGE

¶77

NBM

¶78

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Sri. Subbarayappa v. Sri.K.T.Sudarshan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Subbarayappa v. Sri.K.T.Sudarshan

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

Smt.Begum Hajira Muzaina Vs Sri.Janab Mohammed Syed Khan

Smt Akshatha M D Vs Sri Naveen N

Mr Lakshitha Reddy Vs the Chair Person

Sri.N.v.Shankar Vs Deputy Commissioner

Smt Parvathi Vs Sri. Prabhuraj Venkanagoud Patil

Sri Muniyappa Vs Deputy Commissioner