Karnataka High Court
Smt.Mahadevamma vs The Special Deputy Commissioner on 13 September, 2022
Bench: Acting Chief Justice, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A. NO.130 OF 2022 (KLR-RR/SUR)
IN
W.P. NO.22969 OF 2010 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MAHADEVAMMA
D/O SMT. YELLAMMA
AGED 52 YEARS
R/AT SOMETHANAHALLI
KENGERI HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU DIST 560050.
2. SMT. CHIKKAMMA
W/O MUNIRAMAIAH
AGED 64 YEARS
SOMETHANAHALLI VILLAGE
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU DIST 560060.
... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. HANUMANTHARAYA D, ADV.,)
2
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DIST
BENGALURU 560001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION
KEMEPGOWDA ROAD
BANGALORE 560009.
3. THE TAHASILDAR
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU 586123.
4. SMT. ANURADHA OSWAL
W/O ASHOK G. OSWAL
1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS
AECS LAYOUT, RMV II STAGE
SANJAY NAGAR, BENGALURU 560094.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. P.M. NARAYANASWAMY, ADV., FOR C/R4
MRS. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G. AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 17/04/2021 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A
PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON BLE
COURT AND CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE SAID WRIT
PETITION AND THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT.
3
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal emanates from an order
dated 17.04.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge
by which writ petition preferred by the appellants has
been dismissed.
2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly
stated are that the Tahsildar by an order dated
13.03.2005 directed the entry of the names of the
appellants in the revenue records. The aforesaid
order was assailed by respondent No.4 in an appeal
under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue
Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the '1964 Act' for
short). The Assistant Commissioner by an order
dated 01.12.2005 inter alia held that lands in
question have been alienated by the appellants i.e.,
regrantees on 26.08.1974. It was further held that in
view of law laid down by full bench of this court in
SYED BASHEER AHMED & ORS. v. STATE OF
KARNATAKA & ORS.1, the prohibition imposed
under Section 5(1) of the Karnataka Village Offices
Abolition Act, 1961 does not apply to respondent
No.4, as alienation has taken place prior to
amendment. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the
appeal.
3. The Deputy Commissioner by an order
dated 17.06.2010 dismissed the revision and upheld
the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The
orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and
Deputy Commissioner were assailed in the writ
petition, which has been dismissed by the learned
Single Judge. In the aforesaid factual background,
this appeal has been filed.
1994 (1) KLJ 385 (FB)
4. Learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that the issue with regard to alienation has
attained finality and in a proceeding under Section
136 of the 1964 Act, the same could not have been
reopened.
5. We have considered the submission made
by learned counsel for the appellant and perused the
records. Admittedly, the first alienation took place in
the year 1974 and therefore, in view of decision of full
bench of this Court in SYED BASHEER AHMED &
ORS (supra), any regrant made after the amendment
enures to the benefit of the purchaser.
6. In view of judgment of full bench of this
Court, learned Single Judge has rightly declined to
entertain the writ petition. The said order does not
call for any interference.
In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
