Dismissed

Sri K S Basavarajappa @ K S Raju v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2024WP/57912/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a purchaser challenging an order resuming land granted under the PTCL Act. The court held that since revenue authorities initiated proceedings for resumption immediately after the sale was noticed, no inordinate delay existed to bar the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the order of resumption was dismissed.

Sri K S Basavarajappa @ K S Raju Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:49534 WP No. 57912 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.57912 OF 2015(SCST)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI K. S. BASAVARAJAPPA @ K. S. RAJU S/O. LATE K. K. SANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS KUDLUR VILLAGE, KODLIPET HOBLI SOMWARPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 231

¶9

SMT. GOWRAMMA @ RUDRAMMA W/O. PONNAPPA D/O. LATE K. K. SANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶10

KURUBARA BEEDHI ARKALGUDU, ARKALGUDU TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 102

¶11

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI K. S. SHANKARPPA S/O. LATE K. K. SANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶13

KUDLUR VILLAGE, KODLIPET HOBLI SOMWRPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 231

¶14

SRI K. S. MAHESHAPPA S/O. LATE K. K. SANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS KUDLUR VILLAGE, KODLIPET HOBLI SOMWARPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 231

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:49534 WP No. 57912 of 2015

¶16

SMT. K. S. KAVERI W/O. VASANTH KUMAR D/O. LATE K. K. SANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS SHANKARIPURAM HASSAN TOWN HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201

¶17

SMT. K. S. GANGAMMA W/O. SHIVAPPA D/O. LATE K. K. SANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS NIDIGERE VILLAGE SAKALESPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 134

¶18

SRI K. S. LOKESH S/O. LATE K. K. SANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS KUDLUR VILLAGE, KODLIPET HOBLI SOMWARPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 231

¶19

SRI K. S. DHARMAPPA S/O. LATE K. K. SANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS KUDLUR VILLAGE, KODLIPET HOBLI SOMWARPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 231

¶20

…PETITIONERS

¶21

(BY SRI C. M. KEMPE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KODAGU DISTRICT MADIKERI - 571 201

¶24

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KODAGU DISTRICT MADIKERI - 571 201

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:49534 WP No. 57912 of 2015

¶26

THE THAHSILDAR SOMWARPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 236

¶27

SMT. K. K. BHAGYA D/O. LATE K. K. KEMPAIAH AGE MAJOR KUDLUR VILLAGE, KODLIPET HOBLI SOMWARPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 231

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, A.G.A, FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI C. PUTTARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE R-1/THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KODAGU DISTRICT, MADIKERI, IN APPEAL NO.R.A/PTCL NO.21/2011-12 DISMISSED THE APPEAL PETITION BY ORDER DATED 15.12.2014 AND ALLOW THE SAME, AS PER ANNEXURE-H.

¶31

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

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

The purchaser has filed this writ petition challenging

¶35

the order of resumption passed against him.

¶36

It is not in dispute that on 07.06.1980, the subject land was granted with a period of 15 years prescribed as non-alienation period. In other words, the land

¶37

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:49534 WP No. 57912 of 2015

¶38

was granted after the Act came into force and as a consequence, the permission under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act would have been necessary for the alienation of the land. It is also forthcoming from the records that the petitioner had, in fact, entered into an agreement of sale on 21.03.1991 and executed a sale deed on 22.08.1995. It is thus clear that there was a transfer as defined under the Act within the prescribe period of non-alienation and thus, the provisions the of the PTCL Act would be attracted.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that though the alienation was made in the year 1995, an application for resumption was filed only in the year 2004 and, therefore, there was an inordinate delay in initiating the proceedings which would entitle the proceedings to be stuck down.

¶40

Learned counsel for the grantee, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner had made an application seeking registration of khata in his favour on the

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:49534 WP No. 57912 of 2015

¶42

sale deed being executed in his favour and the revenue authorities have rejected this request and had suo moto directed initiation of proceedings under the PTCL Act. He therefore submits that in such a case, the question of there being the delay in making an application for resumption would not arise.

¶43

In my view, since the Authorities themselves referred the matter for resumption of proceedings under the PTCL Act in the year immediately after the sale, the question of there being any delay invoking the provisions would also not arise and, therefore, this petition is dismissed .

¶44

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶45

GSR

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Sri K S Basavarajappa @ K S Raju v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K S Basavarajappa @ K S Raju 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

Sri. T Bangarappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Mr Gordon Noel Brown Vs Nil

Smt. Rajashree v Vs Sri Chandrashekar S

Kalegowda Vs Javaraiah

M/s Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited Vs Kiran Kumar

Shabana Vs M/S Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.