Allowed

Sri. v. Shankarachari v the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC9 Feb 2024WP/10536/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged orders quashing resumption of land due to alleged alienation violating the PTCL Act. The High Court, observing the application was filed by legal heirs of a different grantee for land granted to another person, set aside the orders of resumption as a mistake of fact and unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order dated 18.09.2019 by Respondent No.1 and the order dated 24.11.2016 by Respondent No.2.

Sri. v. Shankarachari Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:5602 WP No. 10536 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO.10536 OF 2021 (SCST)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SRI V. SHANKARACHARI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O SRI VEERABADRACHARI (LATE), R/O GADDEKANNUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.

¶6

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.22, 4^TH CROSS, AYYAPPANAGARA, NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE, KRISHNARAJAPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036.

¶7

Digitally signed by GURURAJ D Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶8

SRI S. ANAND, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O SRI. SUBBARAYAPPA (LATE), R/O GADDEKANNUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.

¶9

(BY SRI G. PAPI REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI VARUN PAPI REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR - 563 101.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR SUB-DIVISION, KOLAR - 563 101.

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR - 563 101.

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:5602 WP No. 10536 of 2021

¶16

SRI CHICKAMUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O SRI DODDAHANUMANTHAPPA, R/O H. MALLANDAHALLI VILLAGE, HUTHUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.

¶17

SRI HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O SRI MUNIYAPPA, R/O H. MALLANDAHALLI VILLAGE, HUTHUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3, R4 AND R5 ARE SERVED)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE CONCERNED RECORDS AND TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.09.2019 PASSED BY R1 IN CASE VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND THE ORDER DATED 24.11.2016 PASSED BY THE R2 IN CASE VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs:

¶24

(a) To quash the order dated 18.09.2019 passed by respondent no.1 in Case no.PTCL/08/2017 vide Annexure-J and the order dated 24.11.2016 passed by the respondent no.2 in Case no.LND/SC-ST/23 of 2010-11 vide Annexure-H;

¶25

(b) Consequently direct the respondent no.3 to cancel the revenue entries made in the names of respondents no.4 and 5 and restore the entries in the name of petitioner no.2 in respect of the schedule property and etc.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:5602 WP No. 10536 of 2021

¶28

Sri G. Papi Reddy, learned counsel appearing for Sri Varun Papi Reddy, advocate for petitioners submitted that land measuring 02 acres in Old Sy.no.85 (New Sy.no.99) of Kuthandahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Kolar Taluk was granted in favour of one Lakshmakka D/o Venkappa on 20.10.1948 as per Index of land extract at Annexure-G. It was submitted that another portion of 02 acres of same land was granted in favour of one Doddahanumanthu S/o Dasappa. It was further submitted that Lakshmakka - original grantee sold granted land in favour of one Beerappa in year 1961-62. It was submitted that said Beerappa was member of a joint family and granted land was pooled into joint family properties. Thereafter, registered partition effected between members of joint family on 27.11.1975 as per Annexure-D, granted land was allotted to share of one Venkatesh Gowda. Out of 02 acres, Venkatesh Gowda sold 35 guntas in favour of petitioner no.1 under registered sale deed dated 28.05.1995. Remaining extent of 01 acre 05 guntas was sold in favour of Smt.Pillamma on 29.12.1994. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated by respondent no.2 - Assistant Commissioner on an application stated to have been filed by respondents no.4 and 5 herein for

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:5602 WP No. 10536 of 2021

¶31

resumption of land on ground that land purchased by petitioners was part of a granted land and alienated in violation provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Cases and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands), Act, 1978 (for short ' PTCL Act '). It was submitted that under impugned order at Annexure-H, respondent no.2 - Assistant Commissioner allowed application and passed order of resumption. Appeal filed by petitioners against said order came to be dismissed by respondent no.1 - Deputy Commissioner as per order at Annexure-J on 18.09.2019. Assailing said orders present petition is filed.

¶32

It was submitted that insofar as extent of 01 acre 05 guntas of land sold by Venkatesh Gowda in favour of Smt.Pillamma, she had questioned order of resumption in W.P.no.3972/2020 before this Court, which was allowed on 14.12.2021, setting aside order of resumption. Relying upon same, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that even present writ petition requires to be allowed. It was submitted that filing of application by legal representatives of Doddahanumanthu for resumption of lands granted in favour of Lakshmakka would be untenable and therefore orders passed

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:5602 WP No. 10536 of 2021

¶34

by Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner respectively would be unsustainable. It was submitted that since neither Lakshmakka nor her legal representatives had filed application and both authorities had erred in entertaining application for resumption filed by legal representatives of Doddahanumanthu against petitioner would be under mistake of facts. It was further submitted that against order passed in W.P.no.3972/2020, no writ appeal has been filed.

¶35

On other hand, learned Additional Government

¶36

Advocate appearing for respondents no.1 to 3 sought to support impugned orders.

¶37

Respondents no.4 and 5 - applicants are served and unrepresented.

¶38

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition

¶39

record.

¶40

Perusal of impugned orders passed by respondents no.1 and 2 would indicate that proceedings were initiated against petitioners on ground that applicants' father Doddahanumanthu S/o Dasappa was granted 02 acres of land

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:5602 WP No. 10536 of 2021

¶43

out of Sy.no.85 (New Sy.no.99) under Dharkasth dated 13.10.1948a and same was sold in violation of PTCL Act, in favour of petitioners herein. But petitioners' title can be traced to Lakshmakka - original grantee and not Doddahanumanthu. Grant in favour of Doddahanumanthu being separate than, land granted in favour of Lakshmakka, application filed by respondents no.4 and 5 herein are legal representatives of original grantee - Doddahanumanthu for resumption of lands granted to Lakshmakka without establishing their heirship to her would be misconceived.

¶44

Without taking note of this aspect, respondents authorities appear to have mechanically entertained application. On this limited ground, impugned orders would be unsustainable. When neither legal representatives of Lakshmakka nor authorities have registered suo-moto proceedings, passing orders for resumption against petitioners on an application filed by legal representatives of grantees of some other lands would not be sustainable.

¶45

On this limited ground, writ petition is allowed.

¶46

Impugned orders dated 24.11.2016 in Case no.LND/SC-ST

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:5602 WP No. 10536 of 2021

¶49

23/2010-11 passed by respondent no.2 at Annexure-H and order dated 18.09.2019 in Case no.PTCL/08/2017 passed by respondent no.1 at Annexure-J are quashed.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

GRD

Sri. v. Shankarachari v the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. v. Shankarachari 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shree Devi Educational Trust Vs State of Karnataka

Sadhu Vaswani Mission Trust (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

Hamya Naik Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. S. Shivappa Vs Sri Narayanappa

M/S Pedda Shiva Reddy Foundation Wellsprings Academy Vs State of Karnataka

Chandramma Vs the Deputy Commissioner