Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Late Sri. Maara Bhovi vs Deputy Commissioner on 6 June, 2022

Author: B. M. Shyam Prasad

Bench: B. M. Shyam Prasad

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

                         BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

          WRIT PETITION NO.4842/2022 (SC/ST)

BETWEEN :

LATE SRI. MAARA BHOVI
S/O. ANNAPPA BHOVI,
R/O. GALIGALLI VILLAGE,
TARIKERE TALUK,
CHIKMAGALURU - 577 228.

REPRESENTED BY LR

SEENA BHOVI,
S/O. LATE SHETTA BHOVI,
BHOVI COLONY, GALIHALLI,
KODI CAMP, TARIKERE,
CHIKMAGALURU - 577 228.
                                         ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P, ADVOCATE)
AND :

1.      DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
        CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT,
        CHIKMAGALURU - 577 228.

2.      ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
        TARIKERE DIVISION,
        CHIKMAGALURU - 577 228.

3.      KASHINATH
        S/O. HALAPPA,
                         2



     GIRIYAPURA VILLAGE,
     KADUR, CHIKMAGALURU - 577 550.

4.   G.S. SOMASHEKARAPPA
     S/O. SHIVARUDRAPPA,
     GIRIYAPURA VILLAGE,
     KADUR, CHIKMAGALURU - 577 550.

5.   MOHAMMED YASEEN
     S/O. MOHAMMED KHASIM,
     KARNATAKA SAWMILL,
     KODI CAMP, B.H. ROAD,
     TARIKERE, CHIKMAGALURU - 577 228.

6.   T. J. SHAFIQ AHMED
     S/O. MOHAMMED JAFFAR,
     MARUTI LAYOUT, 1ST CROSS,
     KODI CAMP, TARIKERE,
     CHIKMAGALURU - 577 228.

7.   AFROSE
     S/O. KHALANDAR SAB,
     MARUTI LAYOUT,
     1ST CROSS, KODI CAMP,
     TARIKERE, CHIKMAGALURU - 577 228.

8.   MOHAMMED AYUB
     S/O. ABDUL REHAMAN,
     FIVE STAR HOTEL,
     B.H. ROAD, TARIKERE,
     CHIKMAGALUR - 577 228.

9.   CHANDRASHEKAR YANE BABY
     4TH CROSS, KODI CAMP,
     TARIKERE, CHIKMAGALURU - 577 228.

                                   ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.UMESH B.N, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5;
    SRI.G.M. CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA FOR R1-R2)
                              3



     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER DATED 10.12.2020 PASSED BY THE R1 IN
PTCL.NO.10/2011-12, PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO
THE WRIT PETITION.

    THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE            THE
FOLLOWING:-
                        ORDER

The petitioner, as legal heir of Sri Annappa Bhovi, who is granted 4 acres 16 guntas in Sy No.105 of Galihalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Tarikere Taluk [the subject property], has impugned the Order dated 10.12.2020 in PTL.10/2011-12 by the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamagaluru District, Chikkamagaluru [the first respondent] in proceedings under Section 5A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes [Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands] Act, 1978 [for short, 'the PTCL Act'].

It is undisputed that the petitioner had at the first instance filed an application under the provisions of the PTCL Act in No.SC.ST.12/1992-93 for resumption and 4 restoration of the subject property in the year 1992-93. This application is rejected by the Assistant Commissioner by the Order dated 25.06.1993 on appreciation of the material, and specifically on the ground that the subject land is granted for an upset price. The petitioner has again filed an application for resumption and restoration of the subject property under the provisions of the PTCL Act in No.SCST.9/2002-03, and the Assistant Commissioner, Tarikere Sub-Division, Chikkamagaluru District has rejected this application by Order dated 13.02.2003.

Yet again, the petitioner has filed another application for resumption and restoration of the subject property under the provisions of the PTCL Act in No.SCST.[E]21/2010-11, and that this application too is rejected in terms of the endorsement dated 09.05.2011. The Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamagaluru District, Chikkamagaluru in the light of the aforesaid facts, has 5 rejected the petitioner's appeal in terms of the Order dated 10.12.2020. These facts remain uncontroverted, and if these facts remain uncontroverted, no exception can be taken with the impugned endorsement. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE AN/-