Karnataka High Court
Smt. Dasamma vs Sri. Govindaraju on 14 September, 2017
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
WPs.39594-39597/2016
1
N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
W.P.Nos.39594-39597/2016 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN
1. SMT. DASAMMA
W/O LATE SALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
2. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY
W/O LATE SALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
3. SRI.N.S.RAMACHANDRA
W/O LATE SALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
4. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI
D/O LATE SALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/O NAGAMANGALA VILLAGE,
KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562110. ... PETITIONERS
(By Sri M.SUBRAMANI, ADV.)
AND
1. SRI.GOVINDARAJU
S/O LATE SALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT NAGAMANGALA VILLAGE,
KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562110
2. C. KRISHNAKUMAR
S/O MUKUNDARAJAN,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
WPs.39594-39597/2016
2
M/S EMBASSY GROUP OF COMPANIES,
EMBASY POINT NO.150, INFANTRY ROAD,
BANGALORE-01
3. SRI. VENKATESH
S/O LATE SALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT NAGAMANGALA VILLAGE,
KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562110
4. THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
BANGALORE-560 001. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R4)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COMMISSION BANGALORE
RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE VIDE DTD:25.5.2015 AS PER
ANNEXURE-G, AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for respondent No.4.
2. In these writ petitions, petitioners are challenging the order dated 25.05.2005 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District. By the said order, the Deputy Commissioner has granted permission to alienate the property granted in favour of respondent No.1 - Sri Govindaraju. Permission has been granted in terms of the provisions WPs.39594-39597/2016 3 contained under Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, the PTCL Act').
3. The case of the petitioners is that they are the joint owners along with Govindaraju of the land measuring 1 acre 04 guntas comprised in Sy.No.51/P27 and 1 acre comprised in Sy.No.51/P28 situated at Nagamangala Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk. It is their further case that taking advantage of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, respondent No.1 has sold land measuring 1 acre 4 guntas comprised in Sy.No.51/P27 in favour of respondent No.2 as per the Sale Deed dated 07.10.2015. It is in this background, petitioners are making a grievance against the order passed on 25.05.2005 by the Deputy Commissioner granting permission to respondent No.1.
4. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 was the grantee of the lands in question. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.1 had made a request before the Deputy Commissioner seeking permission to alienate the property. After considering the genuineness of the request made by respondent No.1, the Deputy Commissioner has granted WPs.39594-39597/2016 4 permission in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act. Pursuant to the said permission granted, respondent No.1 sold it to respondent No.2 by executing a registered Sale Deed. Petitioners have now become alert and have filed these writ petitions challenging the order passed in the year 2005 after lapse of nearly 12 years. Their contention is in a suit for partition filed by them, the Civil Court has decreed their share in the joint family properties including the lands in question and therefore, they are entitled to challenge the order passed on 25.05.2005.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also brings to the notice of the Court that the decree passed by the Civil Court is challenged in appeal in R.A.No.23/2015 filed by respondent No.1.
6. The said circumstances cannot clothe the petitioners with a right to challenge - Annexure-G order which has been passed in the year 2005. There is no illegality in the order passed granting permission to sell the land. At any rate as third party interest has set in petitioner can not be permitted to challenge the order passed in the year 2005 after a lapse of nearly 12 years.
WPs.39594-39597/2016 5
7. Hence, as order - Annexure-G has been passed in favour of the grantee at the request made by him after being satisfied that he intended to sell the property for his pressing necessity, the said order cannot be interfered with. Hence, writ petitions being devoid of merit are dismissed both on the ground of delay and latches and also on merits.
Learned High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance for respondent No.4 within three weeks from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE PKS