KADRIYAPPA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
LAWS(KAR)-2022-8-623
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Decided on August 25,2022

Kadriyappa Appellant
VERSUS
Deputy Commissioner, Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

VIVEK M.HINDUJA AND ANR. VS. M. ASHWATHA' [REFERRED TO]
NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS' [REFERRED TO]
P. KAMALA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dtd. 6/3/2020 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the appellants has been dismissed. In order to appreciate the appellants' grievance, few facts need mention which are stated infra.
(2.)Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the land bearing old Sy.No.31/17 and new Sy.No.58 measuring 2 acres situated at Srimanahalli Village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bangalore North (Addl.) Taluk was granted in favour of Munidasa @ Munidasappa on 10/9/1949. The aforesaid land was alienated under a registered sale deed dtd. 6/7/1967 and thereafter was re- conveyed on 31/6/1980, 31/12/1992 and 30/11/1993. Some time in the year 2006, after a period of 26 years, the legal representatives of the original grantee filed an application under Sec. 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1978 Act' for short). The aforesaid application was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner by an order dtd. 1/4/2008. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 preferred an appeal which was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner by an order dtd. 27/9/2012. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was assailed by the appellants in a writ petition. The writ petition preferred by the appellants has been dismissed by the impugned order and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dtd. 27/9/2012 was affirmed inter alia holding that the application for resumption of land in question was made after a delay of 26 years. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.
(3.)Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that within the period of non-alienation, the land in question was sold on account of illiteracy of the original grantee. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate that against the order dtd. 1/4/2008 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, an appeal in another proceeding with regard to the very same land was preferred before the Special Deputy Commissioner which was dismissed on 28/7/2010. However, in the case of the appellants, a contrary view has been taken by the Deputy Commissioner. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court in 'P. Kamala Vs. State of Karnataka' ILR 2019 KAR 3301 and 'SHIVARAJU and Ors. Vs. Deputy Commissioner' in Review Petition No. 393/2012 Decided ON 28/6/2022.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.