Ashok S/O Ningappa Talwar, Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Chairman

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9658-DB WA No. 100268 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 100268 OF 2021 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

ASHOK S/O. NINGAPPA TALWAR, AGE: 48, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GABBUR, TAL: HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580021.

¶10

BASAVARAJ S/O. NINGAPPA TALWAR, AGE: 50, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GABBUR, TAL: HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580021.

¶11

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR

¶12

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD

¶13

SIDDAPPA S/O. ADIVEPPA HIREGANNAVAR, AGE: 65, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GABBUR, TAL: HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580021.

¶14

(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE)

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND CHAIRMAN, BHOO ODETAN YOJANEYA ANUTHAN SAMITI, DHARWAD, D.C. OFFICE, DHARWAD-580001.

¶18

THE TAHASILDAR, HUBLI, TAHASILDAR OFFICE HUBLI-580009.

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9658-DB WA No. 100268 of 2021

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

DISTRICT MANAGER, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, DHARWAD-580001.

¶22

NEELAVVA W/O. YALLAPPA HIREGANNAVAR, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE COOLIE, R/O. GABBUR, TAL: HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580021.

¶23

SHANKRAVVA W/O. RAMAPPA HIRAGANNAVER, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE COOLIE, R/O. GABBUR, TAL: HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580021.

¶24

PARAVVA D/O. RAMAPPA HIRAGANNAVER, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE COOLIE, R/O. GABBUR, TAL: HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580021.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. DATTATRAY T. HEBBAR & SRI. VIJAYKUMAR HORATTI, ADVOCATES FOR C/R4-R6)

¶27

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO THAT, THIS HON’BLE COURT PLEASED TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME AND BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER DATED 20/09/2021 PASSED BY HON’BLE SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WP NO.71343/2012 (KLR/RR/SUR), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; ANY OTHER RELIEFS BE GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT MANAGEMENT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTS OF THE CASES.

¶28

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9658-DB WA No. 100268 of 2021

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶34

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶35

The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 20.09.2021 passed by the learned single judge of this Court in W.P.No.71343/2012. The said writ petition was filed by respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 impugning the resolution dated 03.08.2010 passed by the respondent No.1, i.e., the Deputy Commissioner and Chairman of Bhoo Odetan Yojaneya Anusthan Samiti, [BOYAS] Dharwad. In terms of the said resolution, certain sale deeds which were executed in favour of the respondent Nos.4 to 6, were directed to be cancelled.

¶36

Respondent Nos.4 to 6 belonged to the Scheduled Tribe category. Certain lands owned by them had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In the said background, decision had been taken to rehabilitate all such persons who have lost their lands. Thirteen (13) persons belonging to the Schedule Tribe category were identified and respondent Nos.4 to 6 were amongst them. In order to rehabilitate the said persons, lands falling in survey No.221/2 and survey No.185/1 of Kundagol taluk, Hireharkuni village were identified. 50% of the consideration for the said lands was paid by Hubballi-Dharwad Municipal Corporation and remaining 50% was required to be paid by the beneficiaries. Sale deeds to an extent of 2 acres each was executed in favour of

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9658-DB WA No. 100268 of 2021

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

the respondent Nos.4 to 6. The impugned order also records that the respondent Nos.4 to 6 had contributed their share of the sale consideration by raising loan from SC/ST Development Corporation Ltd. The transaction of conveyance of the subject land is complete. However, thereafter, the BOYAS, Dharwad received applications from the present appellants who claim that they belong to the SC/ST category and are also entitled to similar benefits as accorded to other persons, whose lands had been acquired.

¶40

In the given circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner and Chairman of BOYAS, Dharwad passed a resolution cancelling the sale deeds executed in favour of the respondent Nos.4 to 6. This was done with the object of releasing the land sold to them and apportioning a part of the land in favour of the appellants.

¶41

Respondent Nos.4 to 6 challenged the said resolution passed by the Deputy Commissioner and Chairman of BOYAS, Dharwad on various grounds, contending that the Samiti had no right to cancel the concluded sale transaction. The learned single judge found merit in the said contention and held that right and title of the petitioners (respondent Nos.4 to 6) under the registered sale deed cannot be taken away by the impugned resolution passed by the Deputy Commissioner annulling the sale deeds made in favour of the respondent Nos.4 to 6.

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9658-DB WA No. 100268 of 2021

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Learned Single Judge further directed the Deputy Commissioner and Chairman of BOYAS, Dharwad to examine the case of the appellants and also similarly situated land owners for the purpose of rehabilitation.

¶45

We find no infirmity in the impugned order. The learned counsel for the appellants has not brought to the notice of this Court any provision of law, which enables the Samiti to cancel the sale deeds. The title in the land has been conveyed to the respondent Nos.4 to 6 and the same cannot be cancelled except in accordance with law. The Samiti has no power to suo moto cancel or annul registered sale deeds. Thus, decision to set aside the resolution cancelling the sale deeds in favour of the writ petitioners (respondent Nos.4 to 6), cannot be faulted.

¶46

In view of the above, we find no grounds to interfere with the order impugned. The appeal is, accordingly dismissed.

¶47

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶48

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶49

HMB, CT-MCK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Ashok S/O Ningappa Talwar, v. the Deputy Commissioner and Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok S/O Ningappa Talwar, v. the Deputy Commissioner and Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Patson Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd., Belagavi Vs Shri.Nitin Mahesh Raikar

Sumanth Finance Vs Ganapati H Hedge

Legal Manager Vs Nagaraju

Sri Mahesh Angadi Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Represented by Its Principle Secretary Education Dept M S Building Bengaluru Vs Sayeed M Mulla

Smt Praseetha H Vs the State of Karnataka