Sri Nanda Gopal Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNEXURE-A, PASSED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR SUB DIVISION, KOLAR IN LND/SC/ST/19/2013-14 IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.653, MEASURING 1 ACRE 36 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT DEVARAYASAMUDRA VILLAGE, AVANI HOBLI, MULABAGALU TALUK, ETC.

¶31

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

The petitioner is the purchaser and respondent Nos.4 to 7 are the legal representatives of the original grantee.

¶35

The land was granted in favour of the original grantee in the year 1971. The original grantee sold the land in the year 1996 without obtaining necessary permission from the State. On the ground that the sale is invalid due to lack of necessary permission from the State, respondent Nos.4 to 7 approached respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner in the year 2013 under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short "the PTCL Act") with a prayer to resume the

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:35438 WP No. 5740 of 2022

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

land and restore it in their favour. Respondent No.3 allowed the application and passed the impugned order at Annexure-'A' to the writ petition. Against the said order, the petitioner approached the second respondent - the Deputy Commissioner, who, in turn, dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶39

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 7 is absent.

¶40

Learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 justifies the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶41

Admittedly, the land was granted in the year 1971. It was sold in the year 1996 without taking the necessary permission from the State. However, the same was challenged belatedly in the year 2013, after a lapse of more than 17 years. This inordinate delay has not been satisfactorily explained by respondent Nos.4 to 7. Under the circumstances, the delay is required to be considered as unreasonable and in the light of

¶42

the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and Another reported in

¶43

5 -

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:35438 WP No. 5740 of 2022

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

(2020) 14 SCC 232 as well as the decision of this Court in R.Suresh Mohan v. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.3597/2018 , it becomes fatal to the case of

¶47

respondent Nos.4 to 7. Hence the following order:-

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i. The writ petition is hereby allowed .

¶50

ii. The impugned order bearing No. J¯ïJ£ïr/J¸ï¹/J¸ïn/19/2013-14 passed by respondent No.3 (vide Annexure-'A' to the writ petition) is hereby set aside.

¶51

iii. The impugned order dated 11.01.2022 bearing No.¦.n.¹.J¯ï./16/2019 passed by respondent No.2 (vide Annexure-'B' to the writ petition) is hereby set aside.

¶52

iv. The application filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act by the legal representatives of the original grantee is hereby dismissed.

¶53

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶54

VMB

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

Sri Nanda Gopal v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Nanda Gopal v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri G Venkataswamy Vs Sri N H Bhaskar Reddy

Sri. B. S. Sundra Murthy Vs Sri. B. S. Mahendra

Sri Nagaraju Vs Sri N H Bhaskar Reddy

Smt. Akkayamma, Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.M.D.Manchaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri a N Paramashivaiah Vs the State of Karnataka