Disposed

Niranjan Murthy v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC14 Nov 2024WP/12215/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Resumption of granted land under the PTCL Act was ordered without a clear finding that the applicant was the legal representative of the original grantee. The High Court quashed the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner and remanded for fresh decision in light of the earlier remand directions and the sale deed recital on legal heirs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders of the Assistant Commissioner (07.12.2011) and Deputy Commissioner (17.1.2014) quashed; matter remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh decision.

Niranjan Murthy Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:46360 WP No. 12215 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 12215 OF 2014 (SCST)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

NIRANJAN MURTHY

¶8

DEAD BY HIS LRS .,

¶9

1(a) PUSHPA, SINCE DEAD

¶10

P1(b) IS THE LEGAL LRs., OF P1(a)

¶11

1(b) CHETAN

¶12

S/O LATE NIRANJAN MURTHY, AGRICULTURIST, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O SANTHEBANNUR, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213.

¶13

MALLIKARJUNA

¶14

S/O LATE BASAVARAJAIAH, AGRICULTURIST,

¶15

AGRICULTURIST, Digitally signed by KIRAN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, KUMAR R R/O SANTHEBANNUR, Location: HIGH CHANNAGIRI TALUK, COURT OF DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213. KARNATAKA

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. G.C.SHANMUKHA., ADVOCATE FOR P1(b) AND P2; VIDE ORDER DATED:02.01.2023, P1(B) IS TREATED AS LRs., OF P1(a))

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:46360 WP No. 12215 of 2014

¶21

DAVANAGERE-577001.

¶22

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISION, DAVANAGERE-577 001.

¶23

A.K. RAMAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY LRS.,

¶24

1(a) SULOCHANAMMA, W/O LATE A.K.RAMAPPA, MAJOR,

¶25

1(b) K.R. PRAKASH S/O LATE A.K.RAMAPPA, MAJOR,

¶26

1(c) K.R.SUNDARA MURTHY S/O LATE A.K.RAMAPPA, MAJOR,

¶27

1(d) K.R.RAGHAVENDRA S/O LATE A.K.RAMAPPA, MAJOR,

¶28

ALL ARE R/O KENGUNTE VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577526.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI. K.NARAYAN., ADVOCATE FOR R-3 (a to d))

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DATED 17.1.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND THE ORDER OF THE ASST. COMMISSIONER DATED 7.12.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED BY A.K. RAMAPPA FOR RESUMPTION AND RESTORATION OF THE LAND, ETC.

¶32

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶33

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:46360 WP No. 12215 of 2014

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

An application for resumption was filed by A.K.Ramappa bin Satyappa i.e., deceased respondent No.3, contending that he was the legal representative of the grantee and that the lands had been alienated in contravention of the terms of the grant.

¶37

This application was initially granted and was also affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, as against which the purchasers came before this Court in W.P. No.42638 of 2002, and this Court by an order dated 19.09.2008 remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner with a specific finding in the following terms:

¶38

“ (d) The 2^nd respondent shall initially ascertain whether 4^th respondent is a legal representative of the original grantee, whether the land is granted in favour of the original grantee and there is violation of the terms of grant and whether the original grantee belongs to the depressed class.”

¶39

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:46360 WP No. 12215 of 2014

¶40

Thus, the Assistant Commissioner was primarily required to ascertain whether A.K.Ramappa was the legal representative of the original grantee and whether the land had been granted in favour of the original grantee and if there was a violation of the terms of such grant.

¶41

Despite this order, the Assistant Commissioner passed an order dated 07.12.2011 in which he has merely stated that the applicant was the legal representative of the original grantee. In other words, the Assistant Commissioner basically disregarded the specific direction issued by this Court to ascertain as to whether Ramappa was the legal representative of the grantee.

¶42

The Deputy Commissioner has confirmed said order in appeal. However, the Deputy Commissioner has proceeded to record a finding that A.K.Ramappa was the son of the second wife of the original grantee— Kenchappa.

¶43

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:46360 WP No. 12215 of 2014

¶44

The sale deed under which the petitioner purchased contains a recital that the vendors therein i.e., Kenchappa had four daughters viz., Kenchawwa, Lakkawwa, Tolachawwa and Satyava, and there is also a specific recital that apart from these four daughters, there are no other legal heirs.

¶45

It is to be noticed here that this sale deed is dated 09.08.1974 i.e., much before the initiation of proceedings under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the PTCL Act ’ for brevity), in the year 2011.

¶46

In light of this specific recital in the sale deed, the authorities ought to have recorded a clear finding as to whether there were any other legal heirs apart from the vendors in the sale deed dated 09.08.1974.

¶47

The reliance placed on the genealogical tree, which was obviously prepared on the instructions of the

¶48

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:46360 WP No. 12215 of 2014

¶49

applicants therein, could not be construed as an unimpeachable piece of evidence to indicate that they were indeed the legal heirs of the grantee.

¶50

Since there is no clear evidence forthcoming as to whether the persons who had claimed resumption were the legal representatives of the grantee, the entire proceedings would be vitiated, more so when this Court had specifically directed the authorities to ascertain whether A.K.Ramappa, who had moved the application for resumption, was indeed the legal representative of the original grantee.

¶51

Consequently, the impugned orders are quashed and the matter stands remanded to the Assistant Commissioner, who shall decide the matter afresh, keeping in mind the specific direction issued by this Court in W.P. No.42638 of 2002 [SC-ST] vide order dated 19.09.2008.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:46360 WP No. 12215 of 2014

¶54

As regards the requirement of recording as to whether

¶55

A.K.Ramappa was the legal representative of the original guarantee, the Assistant Commissioner shall also take into consideration the recital that has been made in the sale deed dated 09.08.1974 to the effect that the vendors therein were the only legal representatives, before passing an order.

¶56

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of .

¶57

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶58

RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66

Niranjan Murthy v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niranjan Murthy 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

The Branch Manager Vs a Ajay

Sri. Narasappa Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited Vs Ravi

Sri. M. P. Vijayakumar Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Lavanya T K Vs Sri. Shankaramurthy S R

Shanmukhappa Gowda Vs the Deputy Commissioner