Allowed

Sarojamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC4 Jul 2023WP/7865/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a land purchaser, filed a writ petition directing the Deputy Commissioner to decide a pending appeal under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 within three months, after aggrievement due to non-decision.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; DP directed to decide appeal within 3 months; notify respondents and afford opportunity.

Sarojamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:22902 WP No. 7865 of 2023

¶2

¶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. 7865 OF 2023 (SC-ST)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SAROJAMMA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS W/O B.R JAYARAMU R/AT NO.387 6^TH MAIN ROAD 3^RD PHASE, 3^RD BLOCK BASAVESHWARA NAGARA BENGALURU-560037

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SMT.JYOTI S KEMPEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.G S PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR SUB-DIVISION TUMKUR 572101

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU SUB-DIVISION TUMAKURU-572101

¶16

NAGARATHNAMMA W/O NINGAIAH D/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶17

R/AT KALLAMBELLA VILLAGE

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:22902 WP No. 7865 of 2023

¶20

KALLAMBELLA POST KALLAMBELLA HOBLI SIRA TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572125

¶21

4. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA S/O RAMAIAH

¶22

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶23

BASAVARJU S/O LATE MUDLAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶24

RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4 ARE RESIDENT OF THOVINAKARE VILLAGE C NDURGA HOBLI KORATAGERE TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572127

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI.VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R.1 AND R.2)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO DISPOSE OFF THE PTCL (A) 02/2020-21 AND GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO RESTRAIN THE R-3 TO 6 FROM CREATING CHARGE OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY I.E. IN SY.NO.46/3 MEASURING 4.12 ACRES SITUATED AT NANDIHALLI VILLAGE, KORA HOBLI, TUMAKURU- DISTRICT AND ETC.

¶28

NC: 2023:KHC:22902 WP No. 7865 of 2023

¶29

¶30

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

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The captioned writ petition is filed by the

¶33

purchaser of a granted land seeking writ of mandamus against respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner to decide the 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"), which is pending in PTCL (A) No.02/20-21 on the file of respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner.

¶34

I have examined the records and also taken

¶35

cognizance of the grounds urged in the captioned writ petition.

¶36

Feeling aggrieved by restoration order passed by respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner, the purchaser has preferred an appeal before respondent No.1

¶37

Deputy Commissioner.

¶38

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:22902 WP No. 7865 of 2023

¶39

The grievance of the petitioner is that

¶40

respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner has neither passed an order on the interim applications nor the appeal is decided on merits. If an order of restoration is under challenge by availing a remedy of appeal under Section 5A of the "PTCL Act", respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner ought to have either passed appropriate orders on the interim applications or ought to have decided the main appeal, which is not done in the present case on hand. Therefore, I am of the view that this is a fit case to issue necessary direction to respondent No.1 -

¶41

Deputy Commissioner.

¶42

Hence, I pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶45

(ii) Respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner is hereby directed to decide the appeal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order

¶46

NC: 2023:KHC:22902 WP No. 7865 of 2023

¶47

¶48

by taking note 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 .

¶49

(iii) Respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner shall notify contesting respondents and after affording opportunity to the petitioner and contesting respondents, shall decide appeal in accordance with law.

¶50

(iv) Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

NBM

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

¶54

1 (2020) 14 SCC 232

¶55

2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC

Sarojamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarojamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Sri a C Jayappa Vs the Special Deputy Commissioner

Sri Kempegowda , Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Sachidananda Murthy Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Ideal Education Society Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

B Ranganatha Vs State of Karnataka