Disposed

B Rudrappa v. Marappa

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2023WP/6532/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Bengaluru dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash an appeal order via status quo. The Court held that since the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner remained pending, it was premature for the Court to decide on merits. The order was disposed of with directions to the Deputy Commissioner to decide the matter expeditively within four months while the interim status quo order cont

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; direction to Deputy Commissioner to decide matter within four months; status quo order continued.

B Rudrappa Vs Marappa — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 6532 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 6532 OF 2019 (SC-ST)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

B.RUDRAPPA S/O.BANDAVVARA KARIYANNA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT KONDALAHALLI VILLAGE MOLAKLMUR TALUK

¶8

CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 535

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

MARAPPA

¶13

S/O.SANNAJJA

¶14

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶15

DURUGAPPA

¶16

S/O.SANNAJJA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶17

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶18

R-1 & R-2 ARE R/AT RENUKAPURA VILLAGE CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 555

¶19

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA SUB DIVISION CHITRADURGA – 577 501

¶20

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT CHITRADURGA – 577 501

¶21

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R3 & R4; SRI R. GUNASHEKHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1,

¶22

¶23

WP No. 6532 of 2019

¶24

PETITION AS AGAINST R-2 IS ABATED VIDE ORDER DATED 26.11.2021)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-‘G’ PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIRADURGA - 4^TH RESPONDENT IN CASE NO. SCPTL (A)1/2013-14 DATED 31-01-2018 BY DECLARING THEM AS ILLEGAL AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

ORDER

¶28

This petition is filed by the Purchaser of land bearing Sy.No.86 (old No.30) measuring an extent of 5 acres 1 gunta situated at Hanumanthanahalli Village, Challakere Taluk.

¶29

It is the case of the petitioners that originally, the said land was granted in favour of one Sannajja, S/o.Maranna by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 20.04.1942 and he was in possession of the said land till 23.01.1969. Thereafter, the said land was sold to one Huralihal Thimmappa vide sale deed dated 23.01.1969 for valuable consideration. It is stated that after 26 years 06 months 24 days, the said Huralihal Thimmappa sold the land to one Bandavvara Kariyanna dated 23.05.1994. The petitioner is none other than the son of Bandavvara Kariyanna. During the pendency of the proceedings

¶30

¶31

WP No. 6532 of 2019

¶32

before the Deputy Commissioner, the said Bandavvara Kariyanna passed away/died. Thereafter, the land was transferred in the name of the petitioner by way of a partition in the year 2000 and RTC was also changed by way of mutation in the name of petitioner namely, Rudrappa.

¶33

This being the state of affairs, respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the legal representatives of the original grantee filed an application before respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner, Chitradurga in SCPTL/CLK1/2007-08 after lapse of 38 years 06 months 26 days to declare that the sale deed executed in favour of petitioner as null and void. Based on the said application, respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner allowed the said application and restored the land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee by holding that the said land was a granted land. Consequently, respondent No.3 issued an eviction order against the petitioner.

¶34

Aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.3Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.4-Deputy Commissioner in SCPTL Appeal No.1/2013-14. After hearing the petitioner in the appeal, the

¶35

¶36

WP No. 6532 of 2019

¶37

application for stay filed by the petitioner herein before respondent No.4 came to be rejected on the ground of delay.

¶38

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court invoking the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court vide order dated 29.05.2019, on hearing both sides, has passed an order of status quo and the matter has proceeded from then on.

¶39

Admittedly, the matter is pending before respondent No.4-Deputy Commissioner, which is yet to be decided. In view of the same and there being an appeal provision available and the petitioner having invoked the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner to decide the matter in an appeal, it would be premature for this Court to decide the matter on merits. However, considering the fact that this Court has already passed an order of status quo on 29.05.2019. I do not find any ground to retain this petition any more before this Court, as it would further delay the process and proceedings before respondent No.4-Deputy Commissioner.

¶40

Under the circumstances, in the interest of both the parties, respondent No.4-Deputy Commissioner be directed to

¶41

¶42

WP No. 6532 of 2019

¶43

dispose of the matter on hearing both sides expeditiously. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i) The appeal is disposed of , with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to consider the main matter in a time bound manner, within an outer limit of four months from today and to dispose of the same by providing a reasonable opportunity to both sides;

¶46

ii) In the meanwhile, order of status quo granted by this Court shall continue if not otherwise altered or modified by either of the parties or suo moto by the Deputy Commissioner prior to this date. However, a fair hearing shall be provided to both parties.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

LB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56

B Rudrappa v. Marappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B Rudrappa v. Marappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Shashi Rani Vs Sri T.S. Nagaraju

Mr. Bhavish M Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Sri Ramappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. K P Sharanya Vs Sri B K Karthik

Smt M U Seema Vs Subhashchandra B

Ayesha M E Vs Dr Imran Khan