Dismissed

Sri Munikrishna v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Jul 2023WP/4521/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the grandson of the grantee. The Court held that since the petitioner's father withdrew the previous petition indicating lack of interest, and the petitioner lacks an independent right in the land, he has no locus standi to question the resumption order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as it is devoid of merits; pending interlocutory applications are disposed of.

Sri Munikrishna Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:25601 WP No. 4521 of 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 4521 OF 2022 (SC/ST)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. MUNIKRISHNA, S/O. SRI. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, RESIDING AT SRIRAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. P.N. VARADARAJA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:25601 WP No. 4521 of 2022

¶18

SRI. MUNIYAPPA, S/O. LATE MUINYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT SRIRAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.

¶19

SRI. NARAYANAPPA, S/O. LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT GIDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, MANCHENAHALLI HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 532 101.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. VENKATA SATHYA NARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3)

¶22

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INIDA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:05.02.2014 IN CASE NO. SC.ST(A) 84/2011-12 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DISTRICT A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED: 22.07.2011 IN CASE NO.KSC.ST.67/2009-10 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH DIVISION, A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

¶24

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:25601 WP No. 4521 of 2022

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The captioned petition is filed by the son of one Muniyappa, who had purchased the granted land, assailing the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 05.02.2014.

¶29

It appears that the grandson of the original grantee initiated proceedings seeking resumption by availing the remedy under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short "PTCL Act"). The Assistant Commissioner rejected the application, which was questioned by the grandson of the grantee before the Deputy Commissioner, who allowed the appeal. After a lapse of 8 years, the petitioner's father, Muniyappa, questioned the order of the Deputy Commissioner by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.3774447/2014. The petitioner's father, pending consideration of the above-cited petition, filed a memo before this court and sought dismissal of the petition on the ground that he is not interested in prosecuting the case. After a lapse of 7

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:25601 WP No. 4521 of 2022

¶32

years, the present petitioner, who is the son of said Muniyappa, filed the captioned petition assailing the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 05.02.2014.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶34

learned High Court Government Pleader for the State.

¶35

Before I proceed further I deem it fit to cull out

¶36

the relevant paragraphs No.2 to 4 of the order passed in W.P.No. 37744-47/2014, which reads as under:

¶37

"2. Learned counsel Sri. Raju S, submits that writ petition as regards petitioner No.3 may be dismissed reserving him liberty to pursue the writ petition bearing W.P.No.42561/2014.

¶38

3. In the light of the above submission, writ petition insofar as petitioner No.3 - Sri Yadiyappa @ Nagappa is dismissed reserving him liberty to prosecute W.P.No.42561/2014. I.A.1/2015 is accordingly allowed.

¶39

4. Learned counsel Sri. Raju S, files a memo duly signed by petitioners 1, 2 and 4 stating that these petitions may be dismissed as not pressed as the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the above case."

¶40

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:25601 WP No. 4521 of 2022

¶41

On perusal of the said paragraphs, it is clearly evident that the petitioner's father has withdrawn the petition by indicating in the memo that he is not interested in prosecuting the case. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, except this land, the petitioner's family does not hold any other lands. Therefore, it can be inferred that the granted land, which was purchased by the petitioner's father, was his self acquired property. If the petitioner's father has withdrawn the petition after being legally assisted by a counsel, the petitioner, in the absence of an independent right in the granted land, has no locus to question the order of the Deputy Commissioner after a lapse of 8 years. If the petitioner has no independent right, I am of the view that he cannot question the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, who has ordered the resumption of the land in question, holding that the alienation is in contravention of the provisions of the PTCL Act.

¶42

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:25601 WP No. 4521 of 2022

¶43

In view of discussion made supra, I proceed to

¶44

pass the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(i) The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed;

¶47

The pending interlocutory applications, if any, does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

HDK

Sri Munikrishna v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Munikrishna 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

M Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Nayak M Vs Svc Co-Operative Bank Limited

Karavali Ayurvedic Medical College Hospital and Research Centre Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science

Sri Alevuru Premraj Kini Vs the State of Karnataka

Pakeerappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt Prasavi a N Vs Sri Lokesh N

Lakshmidevamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner