SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Kar) 860

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN, J.
Tulasamma & Others – Petitioner
Versus
The Government of Karnataka, Represented by the Chief Secretary & Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 35427 of 2013 (SC-ST)
Decided On : 05-12-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:V. Bharath Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Savithramma, HCGP, Venkatesh P. Dalawai, K.V. Manjunath, K. Suman, A. Sanath Kumar, Basavaraj V. Sabarad Advocates.

The need for evidence in disputed facts and the importance of timely resolution of appeals in land acquisition disputes.

Headnote:

tampering - Land Acquisition Dispute - Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 - Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1888 - Code

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged the legality of an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, alleging tampering with a stay order and denial of rightful compensation in a land acquisition dispute.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the disputed tampering and denial of compensation were not proven, and directed the Deputy Commissioner to decide the appeal within three months.

Issues: Disputed tampering of a stay order, denial of rightful compensation, and the status of the land transfer under the Mysore Land Revenue Code.

Ratio Decidendi: The court refrained from expressing an opinion on the land transfer issue, emphasized the need for evidence in disputed facts, and directed the Deputy Commissioner to decide the appeal within a specified timeframe.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court directed the Deputy Commissioner to decide the appeal within three months.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners have challenged the legality of the order dated 10.07.2013, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, whereby according to the petitioners, the learned Deputy Commissioner had initially granted a stay in their favour, but subsequently had crossed out the stay order, and substituted it with the order "issue notice to hear whether to give a stay".

2. This case has a long and a checkered history, although the issue before this court is a short one.

3. The petitioners happen to be the wife, the married daughter, and the son of one Late Munishamaiah @ Munishamappa @ Sadu Munishamappa. According to the petitioners, since Munishamappa was a member of scheduled caste, in 1946 he was granted a land situated in Old Sy.No.7, New Sy.No.46, located in B.K. Palya Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The land was granted under the Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1888 ('the Code', for short). The land admeasured six acres.

4. Despite the fact that according to the terms of the grant, the land could not be alienated for fifteen years, on 25.08.1946, Mr. Munishamappa sold a parcel of the land, to the extent of three acres, to one Mr. Thimmaiah. On 05.12.1956, Mr. Thimmaiah mortgaged the said land in favour of Mr. Sheshagiri Rao. Subsequently after the mortgage was redeemed, the land was restored to Mr. Thimmaiah. Later on, Mr. Thimmaiah sold the land to one Mr. Thimmaiah, S/o Munivenkatappa, through a sale deed dated 26.06.1957.

5. Out of the remaining three acres of land, on 11.10.1946, Mr. Munishamappa sold two acres of land to one Mr. Narasappa. Subsequently, on 04.02.1959, Mr. Narasappa sold the said land to one Mr. Narayanappa. In turn, Mr. Narayanappa sold the said land in favour of Mr. Honnappa. By sale deed dated 17.07.1975, Mr. Honnappa sold one acre of land to one Mr. Krishnappa. Mr. Honnappa also sold twenty guntas of land in favour of one Mr. Pillappaiah. Thus, the remaining twenty guntas of land remained with Mr. Honnappa. Subsequently, twenty guntas were inherited by his son, Mr. Narayanaswamy. Meanwhile, Mr. Krishnappa sold one acre of his land to Mr. Phaniraj Kashyap, the respondent No.14 before this Court, through a sale deed dated 05.10.2005. Moreover, Mr. Pillappaiah, and Mr. Narayanswamy sold twenty guntas of their respective lands to Mr. Phaniraj Kashyap. Thus, Mr. Phaniraj Kashyap became the owner of two acres of land.

6. Out of six acres of land allegedly granted to Mr. Munishamappa, by sale deed dated 25.08.1946, he sold one acre of land to Mr. Appanappa. Subsequently, Mr. Chikka Munishamappa bought the said piece of land and continued to be in possession of the said land.

7. Mr. Munishamappa expired on 07.07.2010. However, during Mr. Munishamappa's life time, the land mentioned above, was acquired by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board ("KIADB", for short). The acquisition was made between 2005 and 2007. Between 2007 to 2011, KIADB issued award notification announcing consent award to an extent of Rs.64 Lakhs per acre. Consequently, in 2012, the petitioners filed a petition under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ("the Act", for short) before the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Sub-Division. Before the learned Assistant Commissioner, the petitioners challenged the sale of the land which had taken place as early as 1946 to Mr. Thimmaiah, Mr. Narasappa, and Mr. Appanappa. According to the petitioners, since the land was granted under the Code, since it could not be alienated for fifteen years, since no permission of the Government was sought under the Act, the transfer was void-ab-initio. Therefore, the land could not have been sold to other persons. Hence, the land should be restored back to the petitioners.

8. By order dated 05.07.2013, the learned Assistant Commissioner dismissed the petition. Moreover, as the land was acquired by KIADB, the learned Assistant Commissioner als






























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top