Karnataka High Court
Smt B C Nagaveni vs The Assistant Commissioner on 22 November, 2022
Bench: Alok Aradhe, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A. NO.969 OF 2021 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. B.C. NAGAVENI
D/O CHIKKA NANJUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.
2. SMT. SHIVAMMA
W/O CHIKKA NANJUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS.
3. SMT. VENKATLAKSHMI
D/O CHIKKA NANJUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
BALEPURAN VILLAGE
CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TQ
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562104.
... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. SHIVASHANKAR K, ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DODDABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION
2
DODDABALLAPUR-560203
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
AT BEERASANDRA, DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562104.
3. SMT. ASHWATHAMMA
D/O LATE CHIKKANARASIMHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
4. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
D/O CHIKKANARASIMHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
5. SMT. KAMALAMMA
D/O CHIKKANARASIMHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/O ATTIBELE VILLAGE
SULIBELE POST, HOSAKOTE TQ
BENGALURU RURAL DIST-563160.
6. SRI. MANJUNATH M C
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/O MALELPURA VILLAGE
CHENNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI
REDDIHALI POST, DEVANAHALLI
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562104.
7. SMT. NARASAMMA @ NAVYA
W/O RAMESH
D/O CHIKKANARASIMHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/O MALLEPURA VILLAGE
CHENNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI
REDDIHALI POST, DEVANAHALLI
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562104.
3
8. SMT. YASHODAMMA
W/O RAVIKUMARA
D/O CHIKKANARASIMHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/O PUJENAGRAHARA VILLAGE
GATTIGINABBI POST, HOSAKOTE TQ
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-563160.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. SPOORTHY HEGDE N, ADV., FOR C/R3-8
MRS. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G. AGA FOR R1 & R2)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.
NO.40247/2016 DATED 06.08.2021 VIDE AT ANNEXURE -A
AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE 1ST AND 2ND
RESPONDENTS. TO PASS ANY OTHER ORDER/S AS THIS
HON BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Mr.Shivashankar K., learned counsel for the
appellants.
Smt.Namitha Mahesh B.G., learned Additional
Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr.Spoorthy Hegde N., learned counsel for the
respondent Nos.3 to 8.
This intra Court appeal has been filed against an
order dated 06.08.2021 passed by the learned Single
Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the
respondent Nos.3 to 8 has been allowed.
2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly
stated are that respondent Nos.3 to 8 claim to be
grand children of one Addemunishamappa who was
granted 2 acres of land in Sy.No.49/3 at Mallepura
Village, Channarayapatna Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk,
Bengaluru on 14.08.1948. The aforesaid land was
alienated on 03.03.1965. The provisions of Karnataka
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition
of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act') came into force w.e.f.
01.01.1979. Thereupon, suo motu proceedings were
initiated in the year 1984 under the provisions of the
Act.
3. The Assistant Commissioner, by an order
dated 03.03.1986, allowed the proceedings and
directed resumption of land to the grantee. Against
the aforesaid order, an appeal was preferred before
the Deputy Commissioner, who by an order dated
25.02.1989, remitted the matter. The Assistant
Commissioner, after remand, by an order dated
28.08.1989 dismissed the application seeking
resumption of land. Against the aforesaid order, an
appeal was filed before the Deputy Commissioner after
a period of 18 years i.e. on 31.08.2007. The aforesaid
appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay by an
order dated 24.02.2015.
4. The orders passed by the Assistant
Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner were
challenged by respondent Nos.3 to 8 in a writ petition
before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single
Judge, by an order dated 06.08.2021, allowed the writ
petition and directed restoration of the land in
question in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 8. In the
aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been
filed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted
that the learned Single Judge ought to have
appreciated that there is an inordinate and
unexplained delay of 18 years in filing an appeal
before the Deputy Commissioner which was not
explained by the respondent Nos.3 to 8.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent Nos.3 to 8 submitted that after
respondent Nos.3 to 8 were put in possession in the
year 1988, they filed a suit on 27.02.1996 which was
dismissed on 26.07.2000. Thereafter, the appeal was
filed on 31.08.2007.
7. We have considered the submissions made on
both sides and have perused the record. Admittedly,
the order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner
on 28.08.1989. After a period of 18 years, an appeal
was filed on 31.08.2007 before the Deputy
Commissioner. After a period of 7 years from the date
of order passed by the Assistant Commissioner on
28.08.1989, a suit was filed on 27.02.1996 which was
dismissed on 25.07.2000. Even after dismissal of the
suit, after a period of 7 years, an appeal was filed on
31.08.2007. No explanation has been offered for a
period of 7 years prior to filing of the suit and in
respect of 7 years after dismissal of the suit. In the
absence of any explanation for the inordinate delay
caused in filing the appeal, the Deputy Commissioner
has rightly dismissed the appeal preferred by the
respondent Nos.3 to 8. The learned Single Judge,
without assigning any reason, erred in setting aside
the well considered order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner.
For the aforementioned reasons, order dated
06.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge
cannot be sustained in the eye of law and it is
accordingly quashed.
In the result, the appeal is allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RV
