D Leena Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 August, 2012

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

D Leena Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 August, 2012

Bench: Ajit J.Gunjal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

    DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF AUGUST 2012

                       BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT J.GUNJAL

    WRIT PETITION NO.36199/2011(SC-ST)

BETWEEN :

D.Leena Reddy,
D/o.T.Dasaratharama Reddy,
Aged about 35 years,
Residing at No.267,
18th `D' Main Road,
6th Block, Koramangala,
Bangalore - 560 095.                    ...PETITIONER

     (By Smt.Indumathi S.R., Adv. for
         Sri.P.Krishnappa, Adv.)

AND :

1. The State of Karnataka,
   Revenue Department,
   M.S.Building,
   Represented by its
   Principal Secretary.

2. The Deputy Commissioner,
   Bangalore Rural District,
   Bangalore.

3. The Assistant Commissioner,
   Doddaballapur Sub Division,
   Bangalore.
                            -2-



4. Narayanappa,
   S/o.late Dodda Gangappa,
   Aged about 54 years,

5. Chikka Uttanellappa,
   Since dead, represented
   By L.Rs.,

(a) Smt.Sampangamma,
    W/o.Late Chikka Uttanellappa,
    Aged about 52 years,

(b) Sri.Srinivasa Murthy,
    S/o.Late Chikka Uttanellappa,
    Aged about 35 years,

(c) Sri.Shivakumar,
    S/o.Late Chikka Uttanellappa,
    Aged about 33 years,

(d) Sri.Ramesh,
    S/o.Late Chikka Uttanellappa,
    Aged about 30 years,

  All are residing at
  Kondrahalli,
  Nandagudi Hobli,
  Hosakote Taluk,
  Bangalore Rural District.

  Respondents 4 and 5 are
  Represented by their
  GPA Holder K.T.Muniyappa.

6. K.Muniyappa,
   S/o.Late Thayappa,
   Aged about 50 years,

   Respondents 4, 5 and 6 are
   Residing at Kondrahalli Village,
                           -3-



   Nandagudi Hobli,
   Hosakote Taluk,
   Bangalore Rural District.

7. Sri.Ramegowda,
   S/o.Munishamappa @
   Kullappa,
   Aged about 60 years,

8. Sri.Narayanappa,
   S/o.Munishamappa @
   Kullappa,
   Aged about 55 years,

9. Sri.Sonnappa,
   S/o.Munishamappa,
   Aged about 50 years,

   Respondents 7, 8 and 9 are
   Residing at Nanduvinapura
   Village, Nandagudi Hobli,
   Hosakote Taluk.                   ...RESPONDENTS

     (By Sri.Anjana Murthy, HCGP for R1 to R3,
         Sri.P.V.Chandrashekar, Adv. for R4, R5 & R6)
                      . . . .


      This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash
the impugned order dated 19.07.2011 passed by R2 -
Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore
vide Annexure `M'.


     This writ petition coming on for hearing, this day,
the Court made the following:
                            -4-




                        ORDER

This petition is by the purchaser. The disputed land was granted in the year 1926-27. The vendors' father purchased disputed land to an extent of half of the disputed property pursuant to a registered sale deed dated 29.10.1949. The remaining half of the extent of land was purchased by the vendors' father from Narayanappa pursuant to a registered sale deed dated 23.12.1949. The Vendors namely Ramegowda, Narayanappa, Sonappa, the sons of Munishamappa, who are respondents 7, 8 and 9 herein have executed a registered sale deed dated 12.04.2006 in favour of the petitioner.

2. Proceedings are initiated under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1979 for resumption of the land on the ground that there is violation of the terms of the land, within the period of non-alienation clause. The said application was rejected -5- by the Assistant Commissioner, as against which the grantees were before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner, set-aside the order and the application of the grantee was accepted as against which the purchasers are before this Court.

3. The records are summoned and Mr.Anjana Murthy, learned HCGP for the State has made available the said records. A perusal of the records discloses that there is non-compliance of Rule 3 of the PTCL Rules. Indeed a formal enquiry is required to be conducted under Section 33 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Indeed such an exercise has not been done by the authorities. Having said so, the impugned orders are liable to be interfered. Hence, the following order:

(a) Petition is allowed.

(b) The impugned orders are set-aside and the matter stands remitted to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

-6-

(c) Needless to say Rule 3 of the Rules read with Section 33 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act is required to be followed and a formal enquiry shall be conducted, as contemplated under Section 33 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

Rule is issued and made absolute.

4. Mr.Anjana Murthy, learned HCGP appearing for respondents 1 to 3 is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.

SD/-

JUDGE SPS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court