Dismissed

Sri. G. J. Venkatesh v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2023WP/5617/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition filed by a purchaser challenging a Tahasildar's report on survey extent. The court held that since the sale deed was declared null and void in 1985 leading to a final restoration order, the Assistant Commissioner is bound to secure possession for the grantees.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands dismissed. Liberty reserved to contesting respondents to seek possession in terms of Rule 3(6) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Certain L

Sri. G. J. Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:22749 WP No. 5617 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 5617 OF 2021 (SCST)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. G. J. VENKATESH, SON OF JAGADISH K, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, RESIDENT OF MATHRUCHAYA, APOORVA LAYOUT, PURLE, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 222.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. A. T. MALLYA., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N

¶12

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANASOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶14

THE TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, SH-25, BASAVANAGUDI, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, D. C. OFFICE, SIR M. V. ROAD,

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:22749 WP No. 5617 of 2021

¶17

SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶18

SRI. G. P. KRISHNA SWAMY, SON OF LATE G. PUTTASWAMY, MAJOR, RESIDENT OF 1ST CROSS, MILAGHATTA, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶19

SMT. G. P. INDIRA, DAUGHTER OF LATE G. PUTTASWAMY, MAJOR, RESIDENTI OF 1ST CROSS, MILAGHATTA, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶20

SMT. G. P. UMADEVI, DAUGHTER OF LATE G. PUTTASWAMY, MAJOR, RESIDENT OF 1ST CROSS, MILAGHATTA, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶21

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, D. C. OFFICE, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. VENKATA SATYANARAYANA., HCGP FOR R1 TO 3; SRI. S. V. PRAKASH., ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO 6)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE R-3 AS PER ANNEXURE-J DATED 29.7.2017 AND ETC.,

¶25

NC: 2023:KHC:22749 WP No. 5617 of 2021

¶26

¶27

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

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The captioned petition is filed by the purchaser questioning the report of Tahasildar, which is prepared pursuant to directions issued by respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner.

¶30

2. Facts leading to the case are under:

¶31

The purchaser is before this Court assailing the endorsement issued by respondent No.2-Tahasildar vide Annexure-J, wherein on spot inspection, respondent No.2Tahasildar has opined that the extent of survey number of which the petition land is the subject matter, is vast, therefore it requires survey so as to implement the order of restoration passed by respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned endorsement is submitted by respondent No.2Tahasildar without affording an opportunity to the petitioner herein.

¶32

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:22749 WP No. 5617 of 2021

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶34

learned High Court Government Pleader and learned counsel for the contesting respondents. Perused the material placed on record by the petitioner.

¶35

On examining the records, it is clear that the present petitioner has suffered an order of restoration. Respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner has allowed the petition filed by grantees and ordered restoration vide order dated 11.12.1985. The said order is confirmed by respondent No.7-Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 09.08.1990. The petitioner herein has not questioned the orders of respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner, and respondent No.7-Deputy Commissioner. The order of restoration has attained finality. If the order of restoration has attained finality and the petitioner's sale deed is declared null and void, I am of the view that the petitioner has no locus to resist the proceedings.

¶36

Be that as it may. It is well settled that only the Assistant Commissioner is competent to evict the

¶37

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:22749 WP No. 5617 of 2021

¶38

purchaser after ordering restitution and restoration of granted land. Therefore, reserving liberty to the contesting respondents to seek possession in terms of Rule 3(6) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Certain Lands) Rules, 1979, the petition stands disposed of.

¶39

This Court has also taken cognizance of the fact that the purchaser's sale deed was declared null and void way back in 1985. If the purchaser's sale deed is declared as null and void, respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner is bound to forthwith secure possession, and thereafter

¶40

steps are to be taken to hand over possession to the grantees. The object and purpose of the act are very clear, and the validity of the legislation of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'PTCL Act') has been upheld by the Courts. The whole object is to ensure that the piece of land granted in favour of a person belonging to a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe is retained by such person or his legal heirs. If the sale

¶41

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:22749 WP No. 5617 of 2021

¶42

deeds are already held to be invalid in a proceeding held under Sections 4 and 5 of PTCL Act, the order of restoration has to be given full effect, and the same needs

¶43

to be implemented at an earliest of time.

¶44

7. With these observations, I pass the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

The writ petition stands dismissed.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

HDK CT:STK