Allowed

Shanmukhappa Gowda v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC14 Nov 2024WP/5973/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land granted in 1955 for an upset price carried a 10-year non-alienation period under the Rule then prevailing. The sale agreement of 1966 and sale deed of 1976 fell after that period, so no contravention occurred; the court set aside the Deputy Commissioner's resumption order and allowed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Quash/set aside the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 2.12.2013 resuming the granted land.

Shanmukhappa Gowda Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:46406 WP No. 5973 of 2023

¶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. 5973 OF 2023 (SCST)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHANMUKHAPPA GOWDA S/O KAPINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/O KOTE AYNUR VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶8

REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER, NIRNJANAMURTHY A.S. S/O SHANMUKHAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O KOTE AYNUR VILLAGE-577201 SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. S.B.HALLI., ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, SHIVAMOGGA-577201.

¶15

THEASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA SUB DIVISION, SHIVAMOGGA-577201.

¶16

LAKSHMAMMA W/O PALAPPA @ PALANNA, AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS, R/O AYNOOR KOTE VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK-577201

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:46406 WP No. 5973 of 2023

¶18

SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R-1 & R-2)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R1 IN CASE NO.SC/ST/30/2009-10 (OLD NO.4/2001-02) DATED 2.12.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-J TO THE WRIT PETITION, ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The land in question was granted on 12.03.1955 for an upset price and the market value of Rs.143.73 was collected from the original grantee.

¶26

It may also be pertinent to state here that as on the date of the grant, the Rule prescribed a period of 10 years of non-alienation. The land in question was ultimately conveyed to the petitioner on 20.01.1976, when a sale deed was registered in his favor pursuant to a decree that he had obtained to enforce the agreement of sale dated 10.08.1966.

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:46406 WP No. 5973 of 2023

¶28

The Assistant Commissioner rejected the application for resumption on the ground that the period of alienation was only 10 years and the alienation was made after 10 years and, therefore, the alienation could not be found fault with.

¶29

The Deputy Commissioner, however, reversed the said order on the ground that the period of alienation was 20 years.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding of the authorities was to the effect that the land was granted for an upset price and the Rule, that was prevailing as on that date of the grant, prescribed only 10 years as the non-alienation period.

¶31

The learned High Court Government Pleader is unable to refute this contention and candidly admits that the period of alienation in the year 1955 in respect of the lands granted for an upset price was only 10 years.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:46406 WP No. 5973 of 2023

¶34

Since, in the instant case, the agreement of sale was of the year 1966 and the sale deed was of the year 1976, it is obvious that the land had been sold only after the prescribed period of non-alienation and there was no contravention of the terms of the grant.

¶35

The order of the Deputy Commissioner cannot therefore be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside .

¶36

The writ petition is accordingly allowed .

¶37

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶38

RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52

Shanmukhappa Gowda v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanmukhappa Gowda 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

Niranjan Murthy Vs the Deputy Commissioner