Karnataka High Court
S Ravindra Kumar vs The Deputy Commissioner on 12 March, 2024
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:10129
WP No. 24216 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 24216 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
S RAVINDRA KUMAR
S/O LATE S SHARDCK,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT NO.152/92 NEW NO.827,
BELAVATHA VILLAGE,
PUSHPPAGIRI,
NOTU MUDRANA NAGARA POST,
MYSURU CITY-570 003.
(SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. LOURDU MARIYAPPA A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
Digitally signed
by JUANITA MYSORE -570 001,
THEJESWINI MYSORE DISTRICT.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
MYSORE DIVISION,
MYSORE -570 001,
MYSORE DISTRICT.
3. THE THASILDAR,
MYSORE TALUK,
MYSORE -570 001,
MYSORE DISTRICT.
4. K HANUMANTHU
S/O LATE KUPPAIH,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:10129
WP No. 24216 of 2022
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT NO.276, BELAVATHA VILLAGE,
RBI POST,
MYSURU TALUK-570 003.
5. MUKUNDA
S/O LATE B M BETTEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT NO.5 PALAHALLI VILLAGE,
BELAGOLA HOBLI,
S R PATNA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 606.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C.N. MAHADESHWARAN., AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT TO
THE R1, THEREBY TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION AT
ANNEXURE-A DATED 10.11.2022, IN RESPECT OF THE
SCHEDULE LAND AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL) Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Notice to respondent Nos.4 and 5 is not necessary for following reasons.
2. The petitioner claims to have purchased about 23/4 Gunta in Sy.No-93/15 of Belavatta Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk under registered sale deed dated -3- NC: 2024:KHC:10129 WP No. 24216 of 2022 27.03.2003. However, disputes arrows between many such purchasers of sites and the original grantees legal heirs namely Sri. K. Hanumanthu and others. Proceedings were initiated by the legal heirs of the original grantee invoking the provisions of Karnataka SC-ST (PTCL) Act, 1978. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the petition and directed resumption and restoration of 2 acres and 23 guntas of land in favour of the legal heirs of original grantee. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the appeal filed by the purchasers. The matter went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the purchasers were unsuccessful.
3. Nevertheless writ petitions were filed by the purchasers before this Court in W.P.No.50192/2019. This Court found that after the lands were directed to be restored in favour of the legal heirs of the original grantee, it was found that there existed 24 houses belonging to the petitioners and others in 23 guntas, while 25 guntas was occupied for road and open space of 1 acre and 5 guntas remained. The legal heirs of the original grantee were put -4- NC: 2024:KHC:10129 WP No. 24216 of 2022 in possession of the vacant land measuring 1 acre and 5 guntas. However, in respect of the other portion, including the sites formed and the houses constructed, legal heirs of original grantee viz., respondent Nos.4 to 21 therein offered to collect the market value of the sites instead of evicting the persons who had occupied the portion of the granted land. In that regard, notices were issued by the Assistant Commissioner. Some of the purchasers had filed WP.No.42859-42872/2018 and this Court by an interim order dated 21.12.2018 directed that the question of dispossession of the petitioners would arise only after the conclusion of the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner. Nevertheless since the Assistant Commissioner thereafter issued notices calling upon such persons who had purchased the sites to pay Rs.3,00,000/- each to settle the issue, the writ petition was withdrawn by order dated 29.08.2019.
4. This Court eventually passed an order while disposing of the writ petition on 24.09.2021 that -5- NC: 2024:KHC:10129 WP No. 24216 of 2022 petitioners therein and respondent Nos.4 to 21 shall be present at the spot for the joint survey. The purchasers were directed to produce the relevant documents to prove that they are in possession of the 24 sites/houses and that they are not in occupation of any other portion of the granted land. It was directed that if it is found that 24 houses are constructed in a portion of the granted land, then the petitioners and other occupants of the 24 houses shall pay a sum of Rs.250/- per sq.ft if they want to retain the property.
5. It is now the contention of the petitioner herein that although he had purchased the site under registered sale deed dated 27.03.2003 and his vendor Smt. Ashalatha had purchased the land from Sri. Y Gangadhara under registered sale deed dated 26.03.1981, nevertheless the same site appears have been sold in favour of respondent No.5 herein. Learned counsel submits that in terms of the directions issued by this Court respondent No.5 has appeared before the Assistant -6- NC: 2024:KHC:10129 WP No. 24216 of 2022 Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner has issued the impugned notice at Annexure-F dated 27.02.2018 to the respondent No.5 calling upon him to pay the amount to get the property regularized. It is contention of the petitioner that since he is the earlier purchaser and the respondent No.5 is a subsequent purchaser, respondent No.5 will not get any title over the site in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further add that the petitioner had filed OS.No.31/2010 along with three other persons who had filed similar suits against the legal heirs of the original grantee and sought for permanent injunction. Although the suit was dismissed, nevertheless the Appellate Court in R.A.No-684-2016 and connected matters allowed the suit and passed an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendant therein from interfering with the peaceful possession of the respective sites.
6. In the considered opinion of this Court the claim of the petitioner and respondent No.5 cannot be -7- NC: 2024:KHC:10129 WP No. 24216 of 2022 considered by the Assistant Commissioner, since disputed questions of title cannot be gone into by the Assistant Commissioner. It would be advisable for the petitioner to seek a declaration at the hands of the competent civil Court. The Assistant Commissioner is also required to take a note of the observations made by this Court while considering the claim of the respondent No.5 herein. Appropriate directions may be issued by the Assistant Commissioner to both the parties to get a declaration at the hands of the competent civil Court. With these observations the writ petition stands disposed of. The prayer made by the petitioner that he has given a representation to the Deputy Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner may be directed to consider the representation, also cannot be granted, and is accordingly rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE AMA