Disposed

Manjunath Murthy v. Agnesh Glorya R

Karnataka HC13 Dec 2024WP/9443/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to quash an appeal filed by a land purchaser who had admitted the sale was void under the PTCL Act. Court held appeal cannot be quashed but directed authorities to decide it on merits considering admissions.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Deputy Commissioner to decide the appeal on merits within three months considering the purchaser's admissions; Writ Petition disposed of.

Manjunath Murthy Vs Agnesh Glorya R — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:51622 WP No. 9443 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO.9443 OF 2021 (SCST)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MANJUNATH MURTHY S/O. MADDURAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT MULLUR COLONY AMBEDKARNAGAR SARJAPUR MAIN ROAD BANGALORE – 560 035.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI BYRE REDDY M. S., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

AGNESH GLORYA R. W/O. ANTHONY SWAMY Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS by KIRAN KUMAR R R/AT NO.126, 6^TH CROSS Location: HIGH 29^TH MAIN, BTM 2^ND STAGE COURT OF BANGALORE – 560 076 KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT. RUKMINI W/O. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.46, 20^TH MAIN 1^ST CROSS, BTM LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560 068

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT K. G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:51622 WP No. 9443 of 2021

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION BENGLAURU – 560 009

¶16

THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU EAST TALUK K. R. PURAM BENGALURU – 560 036.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI ANANDA V., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-2; SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, A.G.A., FOR R-3 TO R-5)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE PROCEEDINGS IN APPEAL NO. KSC/ST/PTCL/11/2020-21, PENDING DISPOSAL ON THE FILE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT THE R-3 HEREIN, IN RESPECT OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND SY.NO.98/1 AND 98/2 (OLD SY.NO.45) SITUATED AT MULLUR VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, AND UNNECESSARILY THE PETITIONER IS BEING DRAGGED TO LITIGATE BEFORE THE R-3.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

An application was filed by the grantee which was

¶24

initially rejected by the Assistant Commissioner, leading to the filing of an appeal by the grantee.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:51622 WP No. 9443 of 2021

¶27

2. Before the Deputy Commissioner, a Memo was filed

¶28

by the Purchaser/respondent No.2 in the following terms:

¶29

“The Respondent no.2 in the Appeal begs to submit as follows:

¶30

That the above Appeal is filed by the Appellant challenging the order passed by the Respondent No.1 in proceedings No.K.SC.ST.35/2023-14 dated 18/12/2014.

¶31

The Respondent No.2 now realizes that the sale of the land in question by the appellant in her favour, by virtue of the Sale deed dated 30/11/1995, registered vide Document No.7946/95-96 of Book I, is in contravention of section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of certain lands) act, 1978 and she admits and accepts that the sale is abinitio-void as the same was granted to the appellant under the said act.

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:51622 WP No. 9443 of 2021

¶33

That, the Respondent no.2 has no objection whatsoever, for declaring the said sale deed as ‘Null and Void’ and for restoration of the subject land to the original grantee.

¶34

Wherefore, the Respondent no.1 prays that the Hon’ble authority be pleased to allow the appeal as prayed for and pass appropriate orders, restoring the subject land to the original grantee in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶35

Sd/- Sd/Advocate for Respondent No.2 Respondent No.2 Place: Bangalore Date:10.05.2017.”

¶36

Thus, the purchaser conceded that she had purchased the property in contravention of the terms of the grant and thereby violated Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, ‘ the Act ’).

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:51622 WP No. 9443 of 2021

¶38

On the basis of this Memo, the Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner, with the direction to him to examine whether the land was a granted land and pass an order accordingly.

¶39

On remand before the Ascent Commissioner, the purchaser once again filed two Memos in the following terms.

¶40

Annexure “F”:

¶41

“ MEMO

¶42

The Respondent No.2 above named submits that the petitioner has filed the above petition against him and others for restoring the land bearing Sy.No.45, Re-sy No.98, presently No.98/1, measuring 30 guntas out of 2 acre of land at Mullur Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. It is further submitted that the Respondent had purchased the land measuring 1 acre 20 guntas from the petitioner in the year 1995. Thereafter the petitioner had filed as suit against the respondent before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bengaluru Rural District, AT

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:51622 WP No. 9443 of 2021

¶44

Bengaluru, in O.S.No.552/1999. Wherein the petitioner and respondent have compromised the suit, on the basis of the compromise the respondent had transferred the land measuring 0-30 guntas to the petitioner. It is further submits that the respondent No.2 had sold to the respondent No.3, land measuring 0-01, ¼ guntas out of 0-30 guntas in the year 2006 itself. The respondent further submits that at the time of purchasing the land the respondent was not aware that the land comes under the PTCL act. Thereafter the respondent came to know that the land comes within the PTCL. ACT Hence this respondent is filing this memo for no objection to consider this petition.

¶45

Sd/- Sd/Advocate for Respondent No.2 Respondent No.2 Place:B’lore Dated:27/10/17.”

¶46

Annexure “G”:

¶47

“ MEMO

¶48

“The Respondent No.3 above named submits that the Petitioner has filed the above petition Against her and others for restoring the land bearing Sy.No.45, Re-Sy No.98 presently No.98/1, mearuing 30 guntas out of 2 acre of

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:51622 WP No. 9443 of 2021

¶51

Mullur Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, It is further submitted that the respondent No.3 had purchased the land measuring 0-1, ¼ guntas of the land from the Respondent No.2 in the year 2006 itself. This respondent further submits that at the time of purchasing the land she was not aware the land comes under the PTCL act. Thereafter this respondent came to know that the land comes within the PTCL. Act. Hence this Respondent is filing this memo for no objection to consider this petition.

¶52

Sd/- Sd/Advocate for Respondent No.3 Respondent No.3 Place:Bangalore Dated:26/10/17”

¶53

On the base of these memos whereby the purchaser conceded that she had purchased the land in violation of the terms of the grant, the Assistant Commissioner has proceeded to pass an order of resumption and has declared the sale deeds as null and void.

¶54

Notwithstanding the memos that had been filed by the purchaser conceding that the purchase made by

¶55

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:51622 WP No. 9443 of 2021

¶56

her was in violation of the terms of the grant, the purchaser has nevertheless preferred an appeal.

¶57

The grantee being aggrieved by the filing of an appeal is before this Court seeking for a direction to quash the appeal that has been filed.

¶58

It is to be noticed here that the Deputy Commissioner is yet to decide the appeal filed by the purchaser. Obviously, the Deputy Commissioner will have to take into consideration the Memo that had been filed before the Deputy Commissioner on 10.05.2017, which is extracted above and also the other two Memos that were filed by the purchaser during the pendency of the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, which are also extracted above.

¶59

If the purchaser has clearly stated that she has purchased the property in violation of the terms of the grant, obviously, the Deputy Commissioner will

¶60

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:51622 WP No. 9443 of 2021

¶61

have to dismiss the appeal. However, the appeal cannot be quashed as requested by the petitioner and all that can be done is to direct the Deputy Commissioner to decide the appeal on merits taking into consideration the Memos that had been filed by the purchaser whereby it was clearly conceded by her that she had purchased the property in contravention of the terms of the grant and that she had no objection to the resumption of the land.

¶62

The Deputy Commissioner to pass an order, as observed above, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶63

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of .

¶64

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶65

RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53

Manjunath Murthy v. Agnesh Glorya R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjunath Murthy v. Agnesh Glorya R

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

Ms Bhagyamma Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Sri.M.v. Umashankar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Narayanaswamy Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Vidya L Vs Sri Nandeesh M R

B H Mahalingappa Vs B M Jagadish

Mrs Shwetha Alias Gouthami P Vs Mr Shashikumar B B