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

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU
SRI K T MANJUNATH – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 6515/2019



1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS

WRIT PETITION NO.6515 OF 2019 (SC/ST)

BETWEEN

1 .

SRI K T MANJUNATH

S/O K.N.THIPPAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

2 .

SMT.LAKSHMAMMA

W/O SHANKARANARAYANAPPA

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

3 .

SRI.R.N.MANJUNATHA

S/O N.NARASIMHAREDDY,

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

4 .

SRI.G.N.PRABHAKARA

S/O D.V.NARAYANASHETTY,

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

5 .

SRI.M.S.SUDHAKARA

S/O N.A.ANANTHA

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

6 .

SRI.C.H.SUNIL KUMAR

S/O C.H.RADHAKRISHNAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

KARNATAKA ENTERPRISES,

R

2

B.H.ROAD, GOWRIBIDANUR TOWN,

CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT – 562101.

...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI R P SOMASHEKHARAIAH, ADVOCATE)

AND

1 .

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY ITS SECRETARY,

REVENUE DEPARTMENT,

M.S.BUILDINGS,

BANGALORE 560001.

2 .

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

CHIKKABALLAPUR DIST,

CHIKKABALLAPUR 562101.

3 .

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

CHIKKABALLAPUR SUB -DIVISION,

CHIKKABALLAPUR,

CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK

& DIST 562101.

4.

SMT SAVITHRAMMA

W/O LATE R SEETHAPATHI

5.

SRI R JAGANNATH

S/O LATE RANGASWAMY

6.

SMT GEETHAMMA

W/O R SHIVAPPA

7.

SMT RATHNAMMA

W/O LATE R DAYANANDA

ALL ARE MAJOR,

RESIDING AT HOSAPETE,

3

GOWRIBIDANUR TOWN

CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT -562101.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI ARUN K S, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3

SRI K ANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R7 )

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER

PASSED BY THE R-3 IN PTCL [G]6/2004-05 DTD:4.7.2005 AND THE

ORDERS

PASSED

BY

THE

R-2

IN

RA/SC.ST/30/2011-12

DTD:7.5.2014 UNDER ANNEXURE-D AND E AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

Petitioners herein are before this Court calling in question the

order dated 04.07.2005 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and

the order dated 07.05.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner,

under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act,

1978, (hereinafter referred to as ‘PTCL Act, for short). A

preliminary objection is raised at the hands of the private

respondents that this writ petition is filed after delay of more than

four years and therefore the writ petition is liable to be rejected on

the sole ground of delay and laches. It is also submitted that the

4

appeal which was preferred by the petitioners herein before the

Deputy Commissioner should not have been rejected on the ground

that the appeal was filed after the delay of six years, since the

order of the Assistant Commissioner is dated 04.07.2005 and the

appeal was preferred in the year 2011.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that land bearing

Sy.No.119, New No.304 measuring 1 acre 18 guntas situated at

Madanahalli Village, Gowribidanur, Kolar District was granted in

favour

of

Sri

M.Rangaswamy

on

24.04.1964.

The

said

M.Rangaswamy sold the land in favour of Sri K.V.Krishnappa on

17.09.1968. The said Sri K.V.Krishnappa got the land converted

from

agricultural

purposes

to

non-agricultural

purposes

on

26.06.1991 in terms of the order passed by the Tahsildar. Although

doubts are raised against the order of conversion passed by the

Tahsildar, that issue need not be gone into at this juncture. The

petitioners herein purchased the converted land from the wife and

children of Sri K.V.Krishnappa under a sale deed dated 12.06.1996.

Sri R.Dayananda, claiming to be the son of the original grantee filed

an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act before the Assistant

5

Commissioner during the year 2004. Smt. Savithramma, w/o late

K.V.Krishnappa

was

arraigned

as

the

respondent

in

the

proceedings. The Assistant Commissioner proceeded to hold that

the sale transaction was in violation of the conditions of grant and

therefore declared that the sale deed dated 17.09.19

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top