Allowed

B Ranganatha v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Jul 2023WP/7786/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed two connected writ petitions filed by a petitioner-purchaser challenging orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner under the PTCL Act. The Court held the Deputy Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction by disposing of the appeal without considering a court-granted stay and quashed the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 02.03.2023 is quashed. The matter is remitted to the Deputy Commissioner to decide the appeal. The restoration order is stayed pending the appeal decision.

B Ranganatha Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:22901 WP No. 7786 of 2023 C/W WP No. 14243 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.7786 OF 2023 (SC-ST)

¶8

C/W

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.14243 OF 2020 (SC-ST)

¶10

IN WRIT PETITION NO.7786 OF 2023

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

B RANGANATHA

¶13

S/O AMLERA BASAVALINGAPPA

¶14

@ BASALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶15

R/O GOPASHETTY KOPPA VILLAGE

¶16

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

KASABA I HOBLI SHIVAMOGGA TALUK-577208 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT

¶18

(BY SRI. S V PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶19

…PETITIONER

¶20

AND:

¶21

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M S BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001

¶22

¶23

NC: 2023:KHC:22901 WP No. 7786 of 2023 C/W WP No. 14243 of 2020

¶24

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA-577201

¶25

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA SUB DIVISION SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA-577 201

¶26

MANJAPPA @ VARADAPPA S/O LATE NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶27

RUDRESH @ RUDRAPPA S/O LATE NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶28

RESPONDENT NOS.4 AND 5 ARE RESIDENT OF II CROSS KORAMARAKERI GOPALA EXTENSION SHIVAMOGGA CITY-577 205

¶29

A B GANESHAPPA S/O AMLERE BASAVALINGAPPA

¶30

@ BASALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O GOPASHETTY KOPPA VILLAGE KASABA -I HOBLI SHIVAMOGGA TALUK-577 208 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI.VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R.1 TO R.3; SRI.KARTHIK S TAYUR, ADVOCATE FOR R.4 AND R.5)

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:22901 WP No. 7786 of 2023 C/W WP No. 14243 of 2020

¶34

¶35

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02.03.2023 PASSED BY THE R2-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, SHIVAMOGGA IN CASE NO. SC/ST/6/2020 PRODUCED AS PER ANNX-H AND ETC.

¶36

IN WRIT PETITION NO.14243 OF 2020

¶37

BETWEEN:

¶38

B RANGANATHA S/O AMLERA BASAVALINGAPPA @ BASALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O GOPASHETTY KOPPA VILLAGE KASABA I HOBLI SHIVAMOGGA TALUK-577208 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT

¶39

…PETITIONER

¶40

(BY SRI. S V PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶41

AND:

¶42

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M S BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001

¶43

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA-577201

¶44

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

¶45

¶46

NC: 2023:KHC:22901 WP No. 7786 of 2023 C/W WP No. 14243 of 2020

¶47

SHIVAMOGGA SUB DIVISION SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT

¶48

SHIVAMOGGA-577 201

¶49

MANJAPPA @ VARADAPPA S/O LATE NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶50

RUDRESH @ RUDRAPPA S/O LATE NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶51

RESPONDENT NOS.4 AND 5 ARE RESIDENT OF II CROSS KORAMARAKERI GOPALA EXTENSION

¶52

SHIVAMOGGA CITY-577 205

¶53

A B GANESHAPPA

¶54

S/O AMLERE BASAVALINGAPPA

¶55

@ BASALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O GOPASHETTY KOPPA VILLAGE KASABA -I HOBLI SHIVAMOGGA TALUK-577 208 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT

¶56

…RESPONDENTS

¶57

(BY SRI.VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R.1 TO R.3;

¶58

SRI.KARTHIK S TAYUR, ADVOCATE FOR R.4 AND R.5 R.6 - SERVED)

¶59

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R.2 IN CASE NO.SC.ST.6/2020 DECLINING TO GRANT AN AD-INTERIM EX-PARTE STAY OF THE

¶60

NC: 2023:KHC:22901 WP No. 7786 of 2023 C/W WP No. 14243 of 2020

¶61

¶62

ORDER DATED 03.03.2020 PASSED BY THE R.3 IN PROCEEDINGS NO.PTCL.C.R-10/2015-16 AS ARBITRARY ILLEGAL AND ONE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW AND ETC.

¶63

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

¶64

ORDER

¶65

W.P.No.14243/2020 is filed by the petitionerpurchaser feeling aggrieved by the order of respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner, who has declined to grant interim order in an appeal filed under Section 5A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short "PTCL Act").

¶66

This Court, pending consideration of the writ petition in W.P.No.14243/2020, has stayed the order of restoration passed by respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner.

¶67

NC: 2023:KHC:22901 WP No. 7786 of 2023 C/W WP No. 14243 of 2020

¶68

¶69

The connected Writ Petition No.7786/20203 is filed by the petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order dated 02.03.2023 passed by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner, who by virtually misreading the interim order granted by this Court, has disposed off the appeal by recording a finding that order of restoration passed by respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner would be subject to out come of the pending W.P.No.14243/2020.

¶70

In the present case on hand, this Court is quite disturbing in the manner in which the Authorities are deciding the cases arising out of petitions filed under the provisions of "PTCL Act". The reasonings assigned by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner in disposing of the appeal filed by the purchaser under Section 5 of the "PTCL Act" are found wanting and defies logic. The manner in which respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner has disposed off the appeal needs to be condemned. Respondent No.2 has not even taken pain to examine the

¶71

¶72

NC: 2023:KHC:22901 WP No. 7786 of 2023 C/W WP No. 14243 of 2020

¶73

nature of interim order granted by this Court in W.P.No.14243/2020.

¶74

The interim prayer sought by the purchaser in W.P.N.14243/2020 reads as under;

¶75

"Pending disposal of the above writ petition, issue an interim order of stay, staying the operation and implementation of the order dated 03.03.2020 passed by the third respondent in proceedings No.PTCL.CR10/2015-16 produced as per Annexure-C to the writ petition and all further proceedings pursuant thereto and pass such other suitable orders as this Hon'ble Court deems it appropriate in the attendant circumstances and facts of the case to secure the ends of justice."

¶76

The interim order granted by this Court on 09.12.2020 reads as under.

¶77

"Learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶78

Issue emergent notice to respondent Nos.4 to 6.

¶79

¶80

NC: 2023:KHC:22901 WP No. 7786 of 2023 C/W WP No. 14243 of 2020

¶81

Ad-interim order as prayed for, for a period of three months."

¶82

On examining interim relief sought by the

¶83

purchaser and the nature of interim order granted by this Court, what can be gathered is that respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner could not have proceeded to dispose off the appeal when all further proceedings were stayed by this Court. Therefore, respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner in violation of the interim order granted by this Court has virtually proceeded to dispose off the appeal by recording a finding that order of restoration passed by respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner would be subject to out come of the writ petition. Even basic understanding of scope of prayer sought in W.P.No.14243/2020 is found to be missing in the present case on hand.

¶84

W.P.No.14243/2020 is filed feeling aggrieved by

¶85

the rejection of an application seeking stay of the restoration order dated 03.03.2020 passed by respondent

¶86

¶87

NC: 2023:KHC:22901 WP No. 7786 of 2023 C/W WP No. 14243 of 2020

¶88

No.3 - Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, the lis pending in W.P.No.14243/2020 is found to be within a narrow compass and all that was required to be tested by this Court is;

¶89

As to whether respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner erred in not granting stay of execution of the restoration order passed by respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner?

¶90

Therefore, even if W.P.No.14243/2020 is decided

¶91

by this Court, the validity and correctness of the restoration order passed by respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner cannot be adjudicated in pending Writ Petition. All these minor details are not taken into consideration by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner. The Quasi Judicial Authorities are passing cryptic and nonspeaking order without applying their mind. The parties, who suffer these cryptic orders, are often compelled to knock the doors of the Writ Court. This Court would find that the Constitutional Courts are unnecessarily flooded

¶92

10 -

¶93

NC: 2023:KHC:22901 WP No. 7786 of 2023 C/W WP No. 14243 of 2020

¶94

with writ petitions on account of non-application of mind by the Authorities.

¶95

Having gone through the prayer sought in both writ petitions, I am of the view that petitioner - purchaser is entitled for protection till respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner decides the appeal on merits. Respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner has exceeded his jurisdiction in disposing of the appeal when further proceedings were stayed.

¶96

Be that as it may, the impugned order dated 02.03.2023 passed by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner in disposing of the appeal is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set-aside by this Court. The remedy of petitioner under Section 5 of the "PTCL Act" is a statutory remedy and his valuable rights are to be looked into. Respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner being a Appellate Authority has to reassess the entire materials on records.

¶97

11 -

¶98

NC: 2023:KHC:22901 WP No. 7786 of 2023 C/W WP No. 14243 of 2020

¶99

For the foregoing reasons, I pass the following;

¶100

ORDER

¶101

(i) The writ petitions are allowed.

¶102

(ii) The order dated 02.03.2023 passed by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure -H is hereby quashed.

¶103

(iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner.

¶104

(iv) Respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner shall decide the appeal in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and another¹ and Vivek M. Hinduja .vs. M. Aswatha² .

¶105

(v) Pending consideration of the appeal, the order of restoration dated 03.03.2020 passed by respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner as per Annexure - C is stayed till the appeal is decided on merits and

¶106