Dismissed

Smt. Nanjamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Jun 2024WP/31927/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petritions challenging the issuance of a resumption notice under Karnataka SC/ST Act due to alleged transfer of Scheduled Caste land. Court found the underlying applications involved different grants and grantees but dismissed the writ petition, directing AC to examine records afresh.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed in limine. Direction to Assistant Commissioner to dispose within 9 months.

Smt. Nanjamma Vs State of Karnataka — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:21358 WP No. 31927 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 31927 OF 2016 (SCST)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. NANJAMMA, W/O LATE CHANNABASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,

¶8

SRI. P.C. SHIVASHANKARAIAH, S/O LATE CHANNABASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶9

BOTH ARE R/AT PURADAPALYA VILALGE, TAVAREKRE HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK - 562 130. (SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED.)

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. P. H. VIRUPAKSHAIAH .,ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by NARAYANAPPA LAKSHMAMMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶16

SRI. HANUMANARASAIAH @ DODDAIAH, S/O LATE POOJA NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS.

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:21358 WP No. 31927 of 2016

¶18

SRI. ANJINAPPA, S/O POOJA NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.

¶19

SRI. NARASHIVAIAH, S/O LATE POOJA NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶20

RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 5 ARE R/AT 119, KOMMAGHATTA VILLAGE, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK - 560 060.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA AGA FOR R1 AND 2, SRI. HANUMANTHARAYA D., ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5.)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING NOTICE DATED 24.11.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT AUTHORITY IN NO.K SC/ST (S) 26/20152016 VIDE ANNEXURE - G AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS HOLDING THE SAME IS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON 14.06.2024, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioners are before this Court, seeking the

¶27

following reliefs:

¶28

(a) Issue writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other Writ or Order or Direction in the similar nature quashing Notice dated 24.11.2015 issued by the 2^nd respondent authority in No.K SC/ST (S) 26/2015-16 vide Annexure - G and further proceedings

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:21358 WP No. 31927 of 2016

¶30

holding the same is illegal and without jurisdiction;

¶31

(b) Grant such other relief or relief's as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶32

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that respondent No.3 had earlier filed an application before the 2^nd respondent - Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Taluk in SC/ST (S) No.27/2012-2013 contending that 2 Acres of land in Sy No.37 of Puradapalya Village, Tavarekere Hobli presently Bengaluru South Taluk had been granted in favour of his father Late Sri. Pooja Narasaiah belonging to the Schedule Caste vide Grant Order dated 20.03.1957 was granted to him.

¶33

In furtherance of the Grant Order dated 20.03.1957, it is alleged that respondent No.3 petitioner No.3 therein being illiterate the 1^st respondent, who is the 1^st petitioner herein had got executed a registered Mortgage Deed on 06.04.1964, and thereafter a sale deed in the year 1964 in violation of the prohibitory

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:21358 WP No. 31927 of 2016

¶36

period of 20 years. As such it is contended that the sale

¶37

executed in favour of the petitioners, who were respondents therein on 30.04.1969 was in

¶38

contravention of Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1954, sought for resumption of the land.

¶39

The said application came to be rejected by an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 08.10.2015 holding that only photo copy of the Saguvali Chit was produced. Even there is no original produced even an examination of the photo copy of the Grant Certificate indicated that the Grant was made in favour of Sri.Hanumanthaiah S/o Venkataiah where as the petitioner therein was Sri. Hanumanarasaiah S/o Pooja Narasaiah. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner came to a conclusion that the alleged grantee was some one else, due to non-production of the original Saguvali Chit for verification could not be so verified and on that

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:21358 WP No. 31927 of 2016

¶42

basis held that grant is not proved and the petition came to be dismissed.

¶43

The said order not having been challenged, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that another application came to be filed in K SC ST (S) No.26/20152016, this time respondent No.3 was accompanied by respondent Nos.4 and 5, who were stated to be his brothers. Once again in this application this time a claim has been made that the petition schedule property was granted in favour of Late Sri.Pooja Narasaiah. This time claiming under Darkasth S.C.No.08/58-59.

¶44

His submission is that when the earlier petition filed by Sri.Hanumanthaiah S/o Late Pooja Narasaiah the present petition has filed by the very same person now claiming that grant was made in favour of Sri.Pooja Narasaiah. The earlier order passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 08.10.2015 would be equally

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:21358 WP No. 31927 of 2016

¶46

applicable to the present matter requiring the present application to be dismissed.

¶47

On a perusal of the records it is seen that the earlier proceedings was in respect of a Grant Order DD No. 69565/S.C.No.104/58-59 dated 20.03.1957, which was held to be not in favour of the family of the petitioner therein and the proceedings came to be dismissed. Whereas the present petition has been filed in respect of Darkasth in S.C.No.8/58-59 in favour of Sri.Pooja Narasaiah.

¶48

Thus the present matter is relating to a different property, different grant order as also the grantee being different. I am of the considered opinion, that the earlier order cannot be said to apply to the present matter also. Whether there is indeed a grant made in SC No.8/58-59 and whether it has been granted in favour of Sri.Pooja Narasaiah and whether the land in question is the same, would have to be ascertained by the Assistant Commissioner by examining all the

¶49

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:21358 WP No. 31927 of 2016

¶50

records relevant thereto. This Court cannot at this stage, dismiss the proceedings in K SC/ST (S) No.26/2015-16 on the basis of the order dated 08.10.2015 passed in SC/ST (S) No.27/2012-13 since ex-facie they appear to be different. As such the petition stands dismissed .

¶51

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to agitate all the grounds urged herein, before the Assistant Commissioner, who shall consider the same on merits. Since the matter has been pending from the year 2015 the Assistant Commissioner is directed to dispose of the matter within a period of 9 months from the date of a receipt of copy of this order.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

RMS

¶54

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

Smt. Nanjamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Nanjamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt H N Radha Vs Sri Narasimhegowda

Official Liquidator of M/S United Breweries (Holding) Ltd. (in Liqn) Vs M/S Mysore Fruit Products Pvt. Ltd.

Basavarajappa Vs Navilappa

Sri. Ramaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Late Sanna Surappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Tibetan Children Village Vs Sri Muniramu