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

SRI KEMPADASE GOWDA – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER – Respondent
WP 25558/2012



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

WRIT PETITION NO.25558 OF 2012 (SC-ST)

BETWEEN:

SRI. KEMPADASE GOWDA

AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS

S/O LATE KEMPADASE GOWDA

@ KARAGE GOWDA,

R/O THOREKADANAHALLI,

HALAGURU HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK-571 421

MANDYA DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. K K VASANTH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

MANDYA DISTRICT

MANDYA.

2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

MANDYA SUB-DIVISION

MANDYA.

3 . SRI. MUNIHOMBALAIAH

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

S/O LATE LINGAMMA AND CHANNAIAH,

2

4 . SRI. HONNAPPA

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

S/O LATE DADIYAIAH,

5 . SRI. PUTTA

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

S/O LATE DADIYAIAH,

6 . SMT. RAJAMMA

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

W/O LATE CHIKKA HONNA

7 . SMT. HONNAMMA

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

W/O LATE DADIYAIAH

8 . SMT. RATHNAMMA

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

W/O LATE DADIYAIAH

THE RESPONDENTS 3 TO 8 ARE

R/O THOREKADANAHALLI VILLAGE,

HALAGURU HOBLI,

MALAVALLI TALUK -571 421

MANDYA DISTRICT.

&.RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SANDESH KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-1 AND R-2

R-4 TO R-8 SERVED UNREPRESENTED

R-3 SERVICE OF NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE

ORDER DATED 14.12.2012)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

CALL FOR RECORDS IN NO.PTCL APPEAL NO.1/2009 ON

THE FILE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA

DISTRICT, MANDYA AND ALSO THE RECORDS IN PTCL

42/1997-98

ON

THE

FILE

OF

THE

ASSISTANT

3

COMMISSIONER, MANDYA SUB DIVISON, MANYDA, HEAR

THE PARTIES. AND QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 5.6.12 IN

PTCL 1/2009 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,

MANDYA

DISTRICT,

MANDYA

VIDE

ANNEX-G.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

The petitioner being aggrieved by the order

dated 05.06.2012, passed by respondent No.1, vide

Annexure-G has filed this writ petition.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition

are as under:

That

the

petitioner

has

purchased

the

agricultural land measuring 1 acre in Sy.No.104/73

situated

at

Banasumdra

Village,

Kasaba

Hobli,

Malavalli

Taluk,

Mandya

District

from

one

Smt.Lingamma W/o Channaiah and her son being a

minor represented by his natural guardian - mother

Smt.Lingamma under a registered sale deed dated

4

08.02.1965. The petitioner has also purchased

35 guntas of land in Sy.No.104/74 situated in the

same village from one Hottaiah S/o Honnaiah under a

registered sale deed dated 24.08.1966.

2.1. The vendors of the petitioner have filed an

applications under Section 5 of the Karnataka

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of

Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ('the PTCL Act'

for short) before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2

has allowed the applications vide orders dated

06.09.1982 and 30.08.1982.

2.2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order

passed on the said applications, preferred an appeal

before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 dismissed

the appeals vide orders dated 08.05.1987 and

10.03.1987. The petitioner being aggrieved by the

orders passed by respondents No.1 and 2 preferred

5

Writ

Petition

in

W.P.No.9612/1987

and

W.P.No.9613/1987 before this Court. This Court

allowed the writ petitions and remitted the matter to

respondent No.2, who in turn re-numbered the cases

as PTCL No.38/1993-94 and PTCL No.24/1996-97.

Respondent No.2, after due enquiry allowed the

applications on 30.07.1996. The petitioner being

aggrieved by the orders passed by respondent No.2

preferred

an

appeal

before

respondent

No.1.

Respondent No.1 dismissed the appeal filed by the

petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ

petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner.

Though, notices were issued to the contesting

respondents, in spite of service of notices respondents

No.4 to 8 remained absent.

6

4. Learned counsel for the petit

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