Dismissed

K S Sameeullah v. The Assistant Commissioner

Karnataka HC20 Aug 2024WP/18315/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three writ petitions challenging Assistant Commissioner orders regarding land transfer under the PTCL Act were disposed of. The Court noted an existing appeal by third respondents under Section 5-A and dismissed petitions, reserving liberty to appeal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed of; liberty reserved to file appeal under Section 5-A of PTCL Act within four weeks; status quo directed.

K S Sameeullah Vs The Assistant Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:33288 WP No. 18315 of 2022 C/W WP No. 18318 of 2022 WP No. 18323 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 18315 OF 2022 (SC-ST)

¶7

C/W

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 18318 OF 2022(SC-ST), WRIT PETITION NO. 18323 OF 2022(SC-ST)

¶9

IN WRIT PETITION NO. 18315 OF 2022

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

K S SAMEEULLAH

¶12

S/O SYED MUMTAF AHAMED PASHA AGED 50 YEARS, NO.1096, 7^TH A MAIN, 1^ST STAGE, B.T.M. LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 076.

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

(BY SRI. SANTOSH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VARADARAJAN M.S., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISON, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶18

ANAND S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT VAJRAHALLI VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK - 572 135.

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:33288 WP No. 18315 of 2022 C/W WP No. 18318 of 2022 WP No. 18323 of 2022

¶20

SYED IBRAHIM KHALEEL S/O LATE SYED MUMTAF AHAMED PASHA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT VAJARAHALLI VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK - 572 135.

¶21

THE TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK ANEKAL - 562 106.

¶22

THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK - 562 106.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. K. SHIVASHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. G.S. ARUNA, HCGP FOR R1, R4 AND R5)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 05.10.2006 ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE R-1 IN CASE NO.K.SC.ST.105/2004-05, QUASH THE LETTER DATED 13.07.2022 ISSUED BY THE R1 TO THE R4 ANNEXURE-H, GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER STAYING THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 05.10.2006 ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE R1 IN CASE NO.K.SC.ST.105/2004-05.

¶26

IN WRIT PETITION NO. 18318 OF 2022

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

K S SAMEEULLAH S/O SYED MUMTAF AHAMED PASHA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, NO.1096, 7^TH A MAIN, 1^ST STAGE, B.T.M. LAYOUT,

¶29

BANGALORE - 560 076. …PETITIONER

¶30

(BY SRI. SANTOSH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VARADARAJAN M.S., ADVOCATE)

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:33288 WP No. 18315 of 2022 C/W WP No. 18318 of 2022 WP No. 18323 of 2022

¶32

AND:

¶33

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISON, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶34

NARAYANA S/O JADLAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT VAJARAHALLI VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK - 572 135

¶35

SYED IBRAHIM KHALEEL S/O LATE SYED MUMTAF AHAMED PASHA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT VAJARAHALLI VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK - 572 135

¶36

THE TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK ANEKAL - 562 106

¶37

THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR JIGANI HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK - 562 106

¶38

…RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI. K. SHIVASHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. G.S. ARUNA, HCGP FOR R1, R4 AND R5)

¶40

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 05.10.2006 VIDE ANNEXUREA, PASSED BY THE R-1 IN CASE NO.K.SC.ST.103/200405, GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER STAY THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED

¶41

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:33288 WP No. 18315 of 2022 C/W WP No. 18318 of 2022 WP No. 18323 of 2022

¶42

05.10.2006 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE R-1 IN CASE NO. K.SC.ST.103/2004-05.

¶43

IN WRIT PETITION NO. 18323 OF 2022

¶44

BETWEEN:

¶45

K.S. SAMEEULLAH S/O SYED MUMTAF AHAMED PASHA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, NO.1096, 7^TH A MAIN, 1^ST STAGE, B.T.M. LAYOUT,

¶46

BANGALORE - 560 076. …PETITIONER

¶47

(BY SRI. SANTOSH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VARADARAJAN M.S., ADVOCATE)

¶48

AND:

¶49

1 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION K G ROAD

¶50

BANGALORE - 560 009

¶51

2 . NARASIMHA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/A VAJARAHALLI VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK - 572 135

¶52

3 . SYED IBRAHIM KHALEEL S/O LATE SYED MUMTAF AHAMED PASHA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/A VAJARAHALLI VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI

¶53

ANEKAL TALUK-572135

¶54

4 . THE TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK

¶55

ANEKAL - 562 106

¶56

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:33288 WP No. 18315 of 2022 C/W WP No. 18318 of 2022 WP No. 18323 of 2022

¶57

5 . THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR JIGANI HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK-562106

¶58

…RESPONDENTS

¶59

(BY SRI. K. SHIVASHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. G.S. ARUNA, HCGP FOR R1, R4 AND R5)

¶60

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 05.10.2006 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, AND THE CORRECTED/RECTIFIED ORDER DATED 06.02.2007 VIDE ANNEXURE-B, PASSED BY THE R-1 IN CASE NO.K.SC.ST.104/2004-05, GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER STAY THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.10.2006 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND 06.02.2007 VIDE ANNEXURE-B PASSED BY THE R-1 IN CASE NO. K.SC.ST.104/2004-05.

¶61

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶62

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶63

ORAL ORDER

¶64

IN W.P.NO.18315/2022

¶65

In this writ petition, petitioner called in question order dated 05.10.2006 passed by Assistant Commissioner under Section 5 of Karnataka Scheduled Castes/Scheduled

¶66

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:33288 WP No. 18315 of 2022 C/W WP No. 18318 of 2022 WP No. 18323 of 2022

¶67

Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "PTCL Act").

¶68

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the land bearing New No.249, Old No.156, measuring 2 acres of Mantappa Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk originally granted in favour of one Muniswamy. Muniswamy, in turn, sold this property to one Syed Ibrahim Khalid - 3^rd respondent herein on 31.12.1991. From 3^rd respondent, the petitioner has purchased this property by a registered sale deed dated 30.10.2004. The 2^nd respondent, grand son of original grantee has filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of PTCL Act for restoration of land without making petitioner as a party. Without giving an opportunity to the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry, the Assistant Commissioner has passed the impugned order at Annexure-A.

¶69

Sri.K.Shivashankar, learned counsel appearing

¶70

for respondent No.2 has submitted that against the order

¶71

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:33288 WP No. 18315 of 2022 C/W WP No. 18318 of 2022 WP No. 18323 of 2022

¶72

passed by the Assistant Commissioner, i.e., impugned order at Annexure-A in this writ petition, one Sri. Syed Ibrahim Khalid has filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5-A of the PTCL Act in K.SC/ST.Appeal No.83/2022, the same is pending before the Deputy Commissioner for consideration. The petitioner can also file an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner challenging the impugned order.

¶73

Under Section 5-A of the PTCL Act, any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 5 of PTCL Act can file an appeal. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, since petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal provided under Section 5-A of PTCL Act and also in respect of the impugned order, there is already an appeal filed by one Sri.Syed Ibrahim Khalid in K.SC/ST.Appeal No.83/2022, pending before the Deputy Commissioner, this writ petition has to be disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal

¶74

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:33288 WP No. 18315 of 2022 C/W WP No. 18318 of 2022 WP No. 18323 of 2022

¶75

before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5-A of the PTCL Act.

¶76

Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of

¶77

reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5-A of the PTCL Act within four weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed, the Appellate Authority without insisting for delay, shall consider the appeal filed by the petitioner along with K.SC/ST.Appeal No.83/2022, after giving opportunity to all the parties and pass an order in accordance with law.

¶78

IN W.P.NO.18318/2022

¶79

In this writ petition, the petitioner called in question the order dated 05.10.2006 passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 5 of "PTCL Act".

¶80

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the land bearing New No.249, Old No.156, measuring 2 acres of Mantappa Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk originally granted in favour of one

¶81

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:33288 WP No. 18315 of 2022 C/W WP No. 18318 of 2022 WP No. 18323 of 2022

¶82

Narayana, Legal representative of Sri.Hanumanthappa. Sri.Narayana in turn sold this property to one Syed Ismail Zahid - 3^rd respondent herein on 30.12.1991. From 3^rd respondent, the petitioner has purchased this property by a registered sale deed dated 30.10.2004. The 2^nd respondent, grand son of original grantee has filed an application under Section 4 and 5 of PTCL Act for restoration of land without making petitioner as party. Without giving an opportunity to the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry, the Assistant Commissioner has passed the impugned order at Annexure-A.

¶83

Sri.K.Shivashankar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has submitted that against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, i.e., impugned order at Annexure-A in this writ petition, one Sri. Syed Ismail Zahid has filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5-A of the PTCL Act in K.SC/ST.Appeal No.69/2022, the same is pending before the Deputy Commissioner for consideration. The petitioner

¶84

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:33288 WP No. 18315 of 2022 C/W WP No. 18318 of 2022 WP No. 18323 of 2022

¶85

can also file an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner challenging that impugned order.

¶86

Under Section 5-A of the PTCL Act, any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 5 of PTCL Act can file an appeal. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, since the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal provided under Section 5- A of PTCL Act and also in respect of the impugned order, there is already an appeal filed by one Sri.Syed Ismail Zahid in K.SC/ST.Appeal No.69/2022, pending before the Deputy Commissioner, this writ petition has to be disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5-A of the PTCL Act.

¶87

Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5-A of the PTCL Act within four weeks from today. If such an appeal is

¶88

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:33288 WP No. 18315 of 2022 C/W WP No. 18318 of 2022 WP No. 18323 of 2022

¶89

filed, the Appellate Authority without insisting for delay, shall consider the appeal filed by the petitioner along with K.SC/ST.Appeal No.69/2022, after giving opportunity to all the parties and pass an order in accordance with law.

¶90

IN W.P.NO.18323/2022

¶91

In this writ petition, petitioner called in question orders dated 05.10.2006 and 06.02.2007 passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 5 of PTCL Act.

¶92

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶93

has contended that the land bearing New No.246, Old No.156, measuring 2 acres of Mantappa Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk was originally granted in favour of one Narasimha. Sri.Narasimha, in turn sold this property to one Syed Ismail Zahid - 3^rd respondent herein on 11.12.1991. From 3^rd respondent, the petitioner has purchased this property by a registered sale deed dated 30.10.2004. The 2^nd respondent, grand son of original grantee has filed an application under Section 4 and 5 of

¶94

12 -

¶95

NC: 2024:KHC:33288 WP No. 18315 of 2022 C/W WP No. 18318 of 2022 WP No. 18323 of 2022

¶96

PTCL Act for restoration of land, without making the petitioner as a party. Without giving an opportunity to the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry, the Assistant Commissioner has passed the impugned order at Annexure-A.

¶97

Sri.K.Shivashankar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has submitted that against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, i.e., impugned order at Annexure-A in this writ petition, one Sri. Syed Ismail Zahid has filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5-A of the PTCL Act in K.SC/ST.Appeal No.68/2022, the same is pending before the Deputy Commissioner for consideration. The petitioner can also file an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner challenging that impugned order.

¶98

Under Section 5-A of the PTCL Act, any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 5 of PTCL Act can file an appeal. In view of the above, without expressing any

¶99

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:33288 WP No. 18315 of 2022 C/W WP No. 18318 of 2022 WP No. 18323 of 2022

¶100

opinion on the merits of the case, since petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal provided under Section 5-A of PTCL Act and also in respect of the impugned order, there is already appeal filed by one Sri.Syed Ismail Zahid in K.SC/ST.Appeal No.68/2022, pending before the Deputy Commissioner, this writ petition has to be disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5-A of the PTCL Act.

¶101

Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5-A of the PTCL Act within four weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed, the Appellate Authority without insisting for delay, shall consider the appeal filed by the petitioner along with K.SC/ST.Appeal No.68/2022, after giving opportunity to all the parties and pass an order in accordance with law.

¶102

14 -

¶103

NC: 2024:KHC:33288 WP No. 18315 of 2022 C/W WP No. 18318 of 2022 WP No. 18323 of 2022

¶104

Till pending disposal of appeals, parties are

¶105

directed to maintain status-quo in respect of the property

¶106

in dispute.

¶107

Sd/-

¶108

(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶109

RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50

K S Sameeullah v. The Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K S Sameeullah v. The Assistant 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

Mohammed Anwar Sab Vs Vishwanatha B

Smt. Sahana Vs Sri. Srinivas

Smt. Chandana. P. S. Vs Sri. Syed Aleem

Sri Dayanand a Vs Akamal Jan

The Managing Director Vs Sri Shivakumar

Smt. Meghana D Vs Sri Eleazer Kumar M