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

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 57030

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

PRESENT

THE HON9BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

AND

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI

W.A.No.850/2021 (SCST)

BETWEEN :

1.

SHIVARAJU

S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

2.

RAMACHANDRA

S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

3.

LAKSHMIDEVI

S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

RESPS 1 TO 3 ARE R/AT No.278

A.K. COLONY, THANISANDRA

DR.SHIVARAMAKARANTHA POST

KRISHNARAJAPURA POST AND HOBLI

BANGALORE EAST TALUK- 560054.

4.

B.AKKAYAMMA

W/O ANJINAPPA

AGED ABOVE 60 YEARS

R/AT SANJAYANAGAR

SHED ROAD, K.R.PURAM

BANGALORE - 560036

5.

MUNIRATNAMMA.C

D/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA

AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

- 2 -

R/AT No.278, A.K.COLONY,

THANISANDRA,

DR.SHIVARAMAKARANTHA POST

KRISHNARAJAPURA POST AND HOBLI

BANGALORE EAST TALK 560077.

...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI JAYKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR

SRI SOMARAJU.A., ADV.)

AND :

1.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

BANGALORE DISTRICT

BANGALORE-560001.

2.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION

BANGALORE-560001.

3.

LAKSHMAMMA

D/O LATE DODDAMUNIYAPPA

C/O MUNI CHINNAPPA

4.

MUNIYAMMA

D/O LATE DODDAMUNIYAPPA

C/O MUNIYAPPA

RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 ARE R/AT

DEVAGANAHALLI, KUNDANA HOBLI

DEVANAHALLI TALUK-560036

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

5.

MAMATHA

D/O PARVATHAMMA ANNEYAPPA

6.

RAGHU

S/O LATE PRVATHAMMA ANEEYAPPA

RESPONDENTS 7 AND 8 ARE R/AT

CHIMANAHALLI VILLAGE

CHENNARAYAPATNA HOBLI

DEVANAHALLI TALUK,

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-560034.

7.

QUEENY STEPHEN

W/O LATE STEPHEN

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

- 3 -

8.

WILLIAM STEPHEN

S/O LATE STEPHEN

AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

R/AT NO.49, HUCHINS ROAD

BANGALORE-560084.

&RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SHASHI KUMAR.G.V., AGA FOR R-1 & R-2;

SRI L.P.G. REGO & ARJUN REGO ADVS. FOR R-7 & R-8.)

THIS W.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE

FINAL ORDER DATED 22/07/2021 PASSED BY LEARNED

SINGLE

JUDGE

IN

W.P.NO.48351-52/2017

AND

CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE

RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 HEREIN AND PASS ANY OTHER

ORDER OR DIRECTION ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES

OF THE ABOVE APPEAL.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,

THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

This Intra Court appeal is directed against the

order dated 22.07.2021 passed in W.P.No.48351/2017

whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent Nos.7

and 8 herein has been allowed quashing the impugned

order dated 20.09.2017 [Annexure-A] passed by the

respondent No.1 3 Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru

wherein

the

order

passed

by

the

Assistant

Commissioner, Bengaluru 3 respondent No.2 herein

[Annexure-B] are quashed.

- 4 -

The appellants contend that the lands in

Sy.No.94 for the extent of 2 acres 37 guntas of

Thanisandra village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, formerly

in Bangalore South Taluk 3 now in Bangalore East

Taluk was originally granted in favour of Laguma @

Dekka on 20.01.1937 under the Darkasth Rules. The

husband of the respondent No.3 herein had purchased

the said property from the legal heirs of the said grantee

on 16.12.1994 through the registered sale deeds vide

common document Nos.8758/1994-95 and 8763/

1994-95.

The appellants herein claiming to be the

legal heirs of the original grantee Laguma @ Dekka had

filed O.S.No.1311/1999 for partition and separate

possession of the said granted lands before the I

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge [CCH-2]

against the family members and the respondent Nos.7

and 8 herein. The said suit came to be dismissed on

- 5 -

17.04.2012. Thereafter the appellants had filed the

application

before

the

Assistant

Commissioner,

Bengalore North Sub-division under the Karnataka

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes [Prohibition of

Transfer of Certain Lands] Act, 1978 ['PTCL Act9 for

short] whereby an order was passed by the Assistant

Commissioner restoring the lands in favour of the

grantee [LRs of the grantee].

Being aggrieved, the respondent Nos.7 and 8

herein had filed an appeal before the first respondent 3

Deputy Commissioner and the same came to be

dismissed by upholding the orders of the Assistant

Commissioner. Aggrieved by the said orders, the

respondent

Nos.7

and

8

herein

had

filed

W.P.Nos.48351-52/2017 which has been allowed by the

Writ Court. Hence, this writ appeal by appellants.

Learned Senior Counsel Sri.Jaykumar S.

Patil representing the appellants submitted that the

- 6 -

learned Single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition

mainly on the ground that the application filed by the

appellants after lapse of 21 years was not maintainable,

hence the orders passed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2

herein are liable to be set aside. Placing reliance on the

Co-ordinate bench decisions of this Court in the case of

Smt.P.Kamala V/s. The State of Karnataka, Rep. By

Its Secretary, Revenue Department and Others [ILR

2019 KAR 3301] and in the case of Smt.Kavita V/s.

The

Deputy

Commissioner

and

Others

[W.A.No.100893/2015, D.D. 02.07.2020], the learned

Senior Counsel submitted that the order of the Writ

Court is against the principles of audi alteram partem

since no opportunity was given to the appellants to

explain the reasons for delay. It was submitted that

O.S.No.1311/1999 was filed by the appellants against

the family members of the original grantee and the

appellants herein, which came to be dismissed for want

of Court fee. These appellants were not the signatories

- 7 -

to the sale deeds executed. The said sale deeds not

being binding on these appellants, the learned Single

Judge ought to have addressed the issues on merits

instead of allowing the writ petition merely on the

ground of delay and laches said to have been caused by

the appellants in approaching the authorities under the

PTCL Act.

Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.7

and 8 submitted that O.S.No.1311/1999 was a collusive

suit filed by the appellants to knock off the property

sold by the legal heirs of the original grantee through

registered sale deeds. The said suit was dismissed after

adjudicating upon the issues framed considering the

merits of the case, not merely on the aspect of Court fee,

as contended by the appellants. It was argued that a

specific stand was taken by the respondent Nos.7

and 8/petitioners befor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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