Disposed

Smt Dakshayani Bai v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Jun 2024WP/29937/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging orders restoring granted land under the PTCL Act was settled by compromise: the legal representatives of the grantee received additional payment, withdrew the restoration application, and consented to the petition being allowed. The court held the 1969 sale fell outside the prohibited period, accepted the compromise, set aside the restoration orders, and dismissed the res

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed per compromise; impugned restoration orders (Annexures B, C, D) set aside; Section 5 PTCL application dismissed as withdrawn.

Smt Dakshayani Bai Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:19985 WP No. 29937 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 29937 OF 2018 (SCST)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. DAKSHAYANI BAI, W/O ESHWARA NAIK, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAGINELLI VILLAGE, HOSURU HOBLI, SHIKARIPURA TALUK - 577 427, DIST: SHIVAMOGGA.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. MANJULADEVI R, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by NARAYANAPPA LAKSHMAMMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, AT SHIVAMOGGA, DIST: SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SAGAR SUB-DIVISION, SAGAR - 577 401, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶16

THE THAHASHILDAR, SHIKARIPURA TALUK, AT SHIKARIPURA - 577 427,

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:19985 WP No. 29937 of 2018

¶18

DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA.

¶19

5. SRI. HANUMANTHA NAIKA, S/O SAKRA NAIKA, DEAD REPRESENTED BY LRS

¶20

5(A). PADMABAI, W/O HANUMANTHA NAIKA, AGE 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.

¶21

5(B). JAISHANKAR, S/O HANUMANTHA NAIKA, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶22

5(C). KUMARIBAI, D/O HANUMANTHA NAIKA, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶23

ALL ARE R/O M.C.R.P. COLONY, TQ: SHIKARIPURA - 577 427, DISTRICT: SHIVAMOGGA.

¶24

J. RAMAPPA, S/O. PARAMESHWARAPPA, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KATIGE VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK - 577 217. DIST: SHIVAMOGGA …RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SMT. MOHAN KUMARI B.V, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 30.01.2006 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.,

¶27

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

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:19985 WP No. 29937 of 2018

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶31

(a) Writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order passed by the 3rd Respondent in Case No. PTCL.03/1991-92 dtd., 30/1/2006 vide Annexure B.

¶32

(b) Writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order passed by the 2nd Respondent in Case No. SC/ST/26/200910 dtd., 6/3/2017 vide Annexure-C.

¶33

(c) Writ of certiorari to quash the impugned notice issued by the 3rd Respondent in No. P.T.C.L.CR. 03-1991-92 dtd., 26/6/2018 vide Annexure 'D'.

¶34

It is submitted that the parties have entered into a compromise and a memorandum of settlement has been filed, which reads as under:

¶35

1. This Petition is filed by the petitioner against the orders passed by the 3rd Respondent in Case No. PTCL. 03/1991-92 dtd., 30/1/2006 vide Annexure B, and the impugned order passed by the 2nd Respondent in Case No. SC/ST/26/2009-10 dtd., 6/3/2017 vide Annexure-C and the impugned notice issued by the 3rd Respondent in No. P.T.C.L.CR. 031991-92 dtd., 26/6/2018 vide Annexure 'D'.

¶36

2. the father of the 5th Respondent Sakrya Naik was granted a land measuring 5 acres in Sy.No.136/2 of Baluru village, Hosuru hobli, Shikaripur Taluk vide order bearing No.1 1951-52 dtd., 2/9/1952 and on this basis the Saguvali chit was also issued.

¶37

3. After enjoying this land for a period of 17 years the land was sold by the father of the 5th Respondent through a Registered Sale-deed to the 6th Respondent for valuable consideration on 25/6/1969 after completion of the non-alienation period of 10 years. In the year 1992, the 5th Respondent filed an application for restoration of the land which is registered in PTCL3/1991-92 before the A.C. which came to be rejected on 25/8/1992. The petitioner purchased this land from the Respondent NO.6 on 20/4/2001 without the knowledge of proceedings for restoration. Thereafter appeal is filed before the D.C.

¶38

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:19985 WP No. 29937 of 2018

¶39

after a lapse of 17 years and the case was remanded to the A.C. and the A.C. allowed it on 30/1/2006. Against which appeal is filed by the Petitioner before the D.C. which came to be dismissed. Against this order the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner.

¶40

4. Now, 5th respondent is died during the pendency of this writ petition and his Legal Representatives are on record. These Respondent NO.5 (a) to (c) state that, the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser who purchased the land in question in the year 2001 itself and she made development in the land by raising arrac-nut and coconut trees by spending huge amount and labour. These Respondent NO.5(a), to (c) have received extra amount Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) from the petitioner for the land and they have resolved the dispute out of court in the presence of village leaders.

¶41

5. Therefore, the Respondent NO.5(a) to (c) may be permitted to withdraw the application for restoration of the land and they have no objection to allow the present writ petition.

¶42

WHEREFORE, the petitioner and the Respondent NO.5(a) to (c) pray this Hon'ble Court to dispose of the Writ Petition accordingly in terms of the settlement in the interest of justice and equity.

¶43

The petitioner and respondent Nos.5(a) to (c) are personally present before this Court. All of them confirm that the settlement has been entered into out of their free will, volition, and there is no undue influence, duress, or better exercise on them by anyone.

¶44

Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that a compromise may not be accepted by this Court since the land granted to the grantee is a government land and this Court ought not to permit a compromise to be entered

¶45

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:19985 WP No. 29937 of 2018

¶46

into by the grantee along with the purchaser in the present case since the transaction / sale occurred during the prohibited period. An examination of the record would indicate that the grant was made on 02.09.1952 with a prohibited period of 10 years. The sale of the property occurred on 25.06.1969, the said sale had occurred after the period of prohibition.

¶47

The further contention of learned Additional Government Advocate is that the sale has occurred without prior permission of the concerned authorities, which is not sustainable inasmuch as the sale has occurred after the prohibitory period and there would be no requirement to obtain any permission from any authority. Hence, the submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate is rejected.

¶48

The compromise between the parties bringing to an end the litigation between them is accepted.

¶49

In view of the said submission of the learned counsel for petitioner and respondent Nos.5(a) to (c), considering that the arrangement and agreement entered into

¶50

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:19985 WP No. 29937 of 2018

¶51

between the parties is lawful. The compromise is taken on record. As such, I pass the following:

¶52

:: ORDER ::

¶53

i) The above petition is disposed in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties. The application for resumption filed by respondent Nos.5(a) to (c) under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶54

ii) Consequently, the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 / Assistant Commissioner in Case No.PTCL.03/1991-92 dated 30.01.2006 and 26.06.2018 at Annexures-B and D respectively are set aside and the order passed by respondent No.2 / Deputy Commissioner in Case No.SC/ST/26/2009-10 dated 06.03.2017 at Annexure-C is set aside and the order.

¶55

iii) The application filed by respondent No.5(a) to (c) under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes

¶56

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:19985 WP No. 29937 of 2018

¶57

and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 stands dismissed as withdrawn.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

GJM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2 CT: BHK

Smt Dakshayani Bai v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Dakshayani Bai v. the State of Karnataka

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

Sri S v Govindaraju S/O Late Venkataraju Vs Sri Huchappa S/O Late Kollisiddappa

Sri Mohammed Ghouse Vs Sri U T Sanna Yerriswamy S/O Late D Y Thippeswamy

Nazeer Ahmed Vs Tumakuru Urban Development Authority

Basavarajappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Veerabhadrappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Shankar G Vs State of Karnataka