Sri. Devaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.45869/2017 (SC-ST) DATED 09.12.2019 AND ETC.

¶28

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

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:11922-DB WA No. 489 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

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

¶33

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶34

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

¶35

The appellant has filed the above captioned appeal impugning an order dated 09.12.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.45869/2017 (SC/ST), whereby the writ petition preferred by respondent No.4 challenging the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner (respondent No.2) and the Deputy Commissioner (respondent No.3), directing the resumption of subject land was allowed.

¶36

The appellant states that 2.00 acres of land falling in Survey No.12/7 (New Survey No.33) of Manavarthekaval Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru [subject land] was granted to the his grandmother [original grantee] on 21.06.1957 (Order No.DDS5/1956-57). The appellant and his father (Sri. Huchappa) had sold the lands to respondent No.4 (Jayanthi Shivaram) under a registered sale deed dated 30.05.1995. The grant of the subject land was subject to the condition that it would not be alienated for a period of 15 years.

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:11922-DB WA No. 489 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Therefore the appellant and his father had sold the land after the period of restriction had elapsed.

¶41

The appellant had instituted a case ( PTCL(G)-11/2014-15 ) before the Assistant Commissioner under Sections 4 and 5 of The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [PTCL Act] seeking resumption of the subject land on the ground that it was sold in violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act.

¶42

It is the appellant's contention that even though the period of restriction (15 years) had elapsed, the alienation was void as it was without permission of the State Government. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the said application by order dated 21.07.2015 and passed an order for resumption of the subject land.

¶43

Respondent No.4 appealed the said decision to the Deputy Commissioner [ Appeal No.80/2015-16 ] which was rejected on 07.02.2017.

¶44

The writ petition preferred by respondent No.4 impugning the orders dated 21.07.2015 and 07.02.2017 was allowed on the ground that the proceedings for resumption of the land had been instituted after an inordinate delay of 19 years.

¶45

5 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:11922-DB WA No. 489 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

The present appeal was filed in March, 2024, which was more than 4 years after the impugned order. However, the appellant contends that the delay is only 818 days and the period of delay till March, 2022 is required to be excluded. The only ground furnished for the delay in filing the present appeal is that the appellant had preferred a review petition [R.P.No.86/2021] which was dismissed on 27.06.2023. However, there is no explanation for the delay after the review petition has been disposed of.

¶49

Thus even if we overlook the delay till the disposal of the review petition, the present appeal is inordinately delayed. And, there is no credible explanation for such delay.

¶50

The application seeking condonation of delay is, accordingly,

¶51

dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.

¶52

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶53

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶54

KMV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9

Sri. Devaraj v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Devaraj v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Mubarakali K Badagi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Haroon K Vs the State of Karnataka

Plivo India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr Arvind Eshwarlal

Khutaijatul Kubra Vs Sri Lokesh K N

Syeda Amina Vs Sri Lokesh K N

Syed Sibagathulla Vs Sri Lokesh K N