Partly allowed

Sri Srinivasa Murthy v. the Special Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC12 Jul 2023WP/5764/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court set aside a brief, unreasoned order annulling a land sale deed. The Court held that the Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction without proof that the land was granted. The matter was remanded to the Special Deputy Commissioner to conduct a proper inquiry after affording both parties an opportunity to place and refute documentary evidence.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 26.06.2018 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Special Deputy Commissioner to hear the case after affording parties an opportunity to place documents.

Sri Srinivasa Murthy Vs the Special Deputy Commissioner — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:24136 WP No. 5764 of 2019

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.5764 OF 2019 (SC-ST)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI SRINIVASA MURTHY S/O SRI D NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT S1749/A-3 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 'C' BLOCK PRAKASH NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 010

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.DIWAKARA K, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR

¶12

SRI.ABHISHEK K, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH DIVISION AMBEDKAR VEEDHI K G ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH DIVISION V V TOWER BENGALURU - 560 001

¶17

SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O SRI. DODDA NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:24136 WP No. 5764 of 2019

¶20

R/A DODDA JALA VILLAGE BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 157

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.VENKATASATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R.1 AND R.2;

¶23

SRI.SUNIL SHESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R.3)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 26.06.2018 AT ANNEXURE-C MADE BY THE R-1 AND PASS NECESSARY ORDERS IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The captioned writ petition is filed by the purchaser feeling aggrieved by the order dated 26.06.2018 passed by the respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-C.

¶28

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel.

¶29

3. Perused the records.

¶30

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:24136 WP No. 5764 of 2019

¶31

4. The petitioner is the purchaser of the land in question. The contesting respondent No.3 has approached respondent No.2 – Assistant Commissioner seeking restoration of the land by invoking provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of t he Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short "PTCL Act")

¶32

5. This Court is shocked the manner in which respondent No.1 – Deputy Commissioner has dealt with an appeal by passing an one line cryptic order. Therefore, the matter on hand requires deeper examination. The question that requires consideration at the hands of this Court is;

¶33

In absence of documentary evidence indicating that the land in question is a granted land, whether respondent No.2 – Assistant Commissioner was justified in annulling the sale deed dated 29.01.2002 and consequently, ordering for restoration?

¶34

6. The appeal under Section 5A of the "PTCL Act" is statutory appeal and respondent No.1 – Deputy

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:24136 WP No. 5764 of 2019

¶36

¶37

Commissioner is bound to examine the materials on record and to apply his mind. One line cryptic order dated 26.06.2018 passed by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner, which is not supported by any reasons, is liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶38

7. Respondent No.1 – Deputy Commissioner is bound to look into the materials on record and pass a reasoned order. The fact that the order passed by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner is one line clearly establishes that he has not at all applied his mind and without giving any reasons, has dismissed the appeal. This cryptic order has led to miscarriage of justice. The petitioner is asserting right and title based on the registered sale deed executed by the original grantee. The minimum requirement for grantee is to place on record the

¶39

Grant Certificate and other relevant documents to demonstrate that the grant was made under the category of depressed class. Unless these materials are placed on record, respondent No.2 – Deputy Commissioner cannot

¶40

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:24136 WP No. 5764 of 2019

¶41

assume jurisdiction to hold an enquiry under Sections 4 and 5 of 'PTCL Act'. I am of the view that matter deserves to be remitted back to respondent No.1 – Deputy Commissioner.

¶42

8. Respondent No.3 for the first time along with statement of objections has placed on record the Xerox copy of the Grant Certificate issued under Form No.2. The petitioner is entitled for an opportunity to refute this document and therefore, the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 – Deputy Commissioner is liable to be quashed.

¶43

9. For reasons stated supra, I proceed to pass the following;

¶44

ORDER

¶45

(i) The writ petition is allowed .

¶46

(ii) The order dated 26.06.2018 passed by respondent No.1 - Special Deputy Commissioner is hereby by set-aside.

¶47

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:24136 WP No. 5764 of 2019

¶48

(iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 – Special Deputy Commissioner. Respondent No.1 – Special Deputy Commissioner shall hear the matter and shall also afford an opportunity to both parties to place on record the documents, if any, and thereafter, proceed to pass orders in accordance with law.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

NBM

¶51

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Sri Srinivasa Murthy v. the Special Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Srinivasa Murthy v. the Special Deputy Commissioner

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.Nikhita Pai B Vs Sri.Raviteja Kamath B K

Sri H Vittalamurthy S/O G Hanumanthaiah @ Nagaiah Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Santhosh Kumar T N Vs Honarable Vice Chancellor Rguhs

Sri Doddavenkatappa Since Dead by Lrs Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Michael Joseph Vs the State of Kanataka

Smt Renukamma Vs Deputy Commissioner