Dismissed

Krishna Sheregar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 May 2023WP/31895/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition filed by a land purchaser challenging an endorsement that barred their appeal. The court held that since the petitioner had already suffered an order of resumption and restored possession, they could not resist the handover of the land.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it was deemed to be devoid of merits and filed on frivolous grounds.

Krishna Sheregar Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 31895 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 31895 OF 2018 (SC-ST)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

KRISHNA SHEREGAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O THIMMAPPA SHEREGAR,

¶8

KOLLUR VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK-576101

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SHRIHARI K, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶13

Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560001

¶15

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI-576104

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KUNDAPUR SUB-DIVISION, KUNDAPUR-576101

¶17

KUSHTA S/O KUDUBI KORAGA, BALEGADDE, KOLLUR VILLAGE KUNDAPURA TALUK-576101

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.VENKAT SATHYANARAYAN, HCGP FOR R1-R3;

¶20

¶21

WP No. 31895 of 2018

¶22

SRI.G.M.NATARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 06.04.2018 FILED AS ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO RECEIVE THE APPEAL ANNEXURE-G OF THE PETITIONER.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The captioned writ petition is filed questioning the

¶27

order of the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner wherein the Deputy Commissioner has held that against the show cause notice to handover possession, the purchaser who has already suffered an order under Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short "PTCL Act") and confirmed by this Court cannot maintain an appeal under Section 5(A) of PTCL Act. The said order is under challenge.

¶28

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the

¶29

¶30

WP No. 31895 of 2018

¶31

respondent No.4 and learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶32

The lis in the instant case revolves around a

¶33

narrow compass. This is a second round of litigation at the hands of the purchaser who has purchased the granted land in contravention of Section 4(1) of PTCL Act. The suo motu action initiated by the respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner has attained finality in view of dismissal of the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein. The counsel for respondent No.4 has placed on record the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.1385/1990. The findings recorded by the co-ordinate Bench at para 5 would clinch the entire controversy. Therefore, I deem it fit to cull out para 5 which reads as under:

¶34

"5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the hardship pleaded, the petitioner is given one year's time to handover possession of the land in question to the 2^nd respondent, subject to the condition that he shall file an undertaking by means of an affidavit before this Court within six weeks from today, undertaking to voluntarily handover possession of the land in

¶35

¶36

WP No. 31895 of 2018

¶37

question to the 2^nd respondent and without compelling him to enforce the orders impugned, on or before 13^th September, 1997. If the petitioner fails to file such an affidavit, the 2^nd respondent is entitled to enforce the orders impugned immediately after expiry of six weeks from today."

¶38

On perusal of para 5, this Court would find that

¶39

the petitioner having suffered an order at the hands of this Court pleaded equity and this Court having examined the comparative hardship granted one year time to the petitioner to voluntarily handover possession to respondent No.4. The said para would also indicate that one year time was granted subject to petitioner filing an undertaking that he would voluntarily handover possession to the respondent No.4 without driving the respondent No.4 to one more round of litigation. Based on the said undertaking, the resumption order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was confirmed by this Court and consequently, writ petition was dismissed.

¶40

¶41

WP No. 31895 of 2018

¶42

Having given an undertaking before this Court,

¶43

it is quite unfortunate to note that petitioner is still litigating by questioning the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner to handover possession. The Deputy Commissioner was justified in declining to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 5(A) of the Act. If petitioner has suffered an order of resumption and restoration, he cannot resist and object to handover possession.

¶44

At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 submits that respondent No.4 is put in possession by the Assistant Commissioner.

¶45

In the light of the discussion made supra, this Court is of the view that captioned writ petition is filed on frivolous grounds and therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain and grant the reliefs sought in the captioned writ petition.

¶46

¶47

WP No. 31895 of 2018

¶48

For the reasons stated supra, I pass the

¶49

following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶52

The pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Krishna Sheregar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Sheregar v. State of Karnataka

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

Dr Sunil Hegde Vs State of Karnataka

Sri C B Manjunath Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Arpitha Vidya Nikethana Higher Primary School Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Shanthamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri a Thimmaiah Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Karunakar Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka