Karnataka High Court
K Shekar Raju vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 March, 2024
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:8968
WP No. 8426 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.8426 OF 2020 (LR)
BETWEEN:
K. SHEKAR RAJU,
S/O RAMARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/A NO.169, 3RD CROSS,
CENTRAL EXCISE LAYOUT,
BHOOPASANDRA RMV 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 094.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY,
Digitally signed DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
by KRISHNAPPA M.S. BUILDINGS,
LAXMI YASHODA
Location: HIGH DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE TAHASILDAR,
BEGNALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:8968
WP No. 8426 of 2020
4. SMT. K.T. PADMAVATHI,
W/O D. SRINIVASA MANDI,
MAJOR IN AGE,
R/A NO.199, 5TH CROSS,
LAKSHMIPURA,
KUMARA RAMA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 019.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SESHU V., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO-CALL FOR THE RECORDS
WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN PASSING OF THE ORDER
ANNEXURE-A, DATED 29.05.2019 BY THE KARNATAKA
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BENGLAURU IN APPEAL
NO.1175/2016 QUASH THE ORDER ANNEXURE-A DATED
29.05.2019 BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT
BENGALURU IN APPEAL NO.1175/2016 AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order
dated 29.05.2019 passed by the Karnataka Appellate
Tribunal at Bengaluru, in Appeal No.1175/2016.
2. A brief background may be required to
understand as to why the petitioner had to approach the
NC: 2024:KHC:8968
Tribunal. The petitioner had entered into an agreement of
sale with Smt.S.R. Venkatalakshmi and
S.R. Champaka, who were the owners of 1 acre and 20
guntas of land in Sy.No.98 of Hoovinayakanahalli Village,
Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. The agreement was
entered into on 27.10.2003. However, it appears that
even prior to entering into an agreement with the
petitioner, the land lord had sold the property in favour of
respondent No.4 herein under the registered sale deed
dated 15.05.2000. Nevertheless, the petitioner filed a suit
for specific performance of contract in O.S.No.591/2004
before the Principal Civil Judge, (Sr.Dv), Bengaluru Rural
District, which was later renumbered as
O.S.No.1535/2006. The land owners along with
respondent No.4 herein were the defendants in the suit.
The Trial Court decreed the suit by judgment dated
16.06.2008. In the execution petition filed in
E.P.No.39/2009, one Mr. Narasimha Murthy, sought to be
impleaded as objector , but after holding an enquiry his
application was rejected and in terms of the directions
NC: 2024:KHC:8968
issued by the executing court, the petitioner deposited the
balance sale consideration of Rs.20,17,500/-. On
06.04.2009, a portion of the land belonging to the owners,
were acquired for the benefit of K.I.A.D.B. Having regard
to the land acquired by the K.I.A.D.B, the Trial Court
directed execution of the registered sale deed in favour of
the petitioner, in respect of 01 acres and 10 guntas of land
in Sy.No.98. At the time of the preparation for execution
of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, it was noticed
that in the RTC an endorsement was made that the land is
forfeited to the Government in terms of the impugned
order passed by the Assistant Commissioner invoking the
provision contained in the Section 79A and 79B of the
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, (Act for short). That
is the reason why the petitioner was constrained to raise a
challenge the impugned order dated 07.11.2008 passed by
the Assistant Commissioner in LRF(BNA)/37/2004-05.
3. Learned counsel submits that the tribunal has
failed to understand the facts in the right perpective. It is
submitted that the tribunal has misled itself in blaming the
NC: 2024:KHC:8968
petitioner for approaching the tribunal after a long delay.
Learned counsel submits that the appeal has been
dismissed only on the ground that the appeal is time
barred.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader,
raised a preliminary objection that this court in the case of
Sri.Krishna Lagatagere vs. the State Government
and others in WP No.20096/2021, dated 01.09.2022
has held that in proceedings initiated under Sections 79A&
B, against a person cannot be set aside at the instance of
a subsequent purchaser. Learned High Court Government
Pleader submits that the petitioner herein is not the
person against whom proceedings were initiated and on
the other hand the proceedings were initiated against
respondent No.4, having regard to the sale deed dated
15.05.2000 and therefore the petitioner cannot be
permitted to call in question the impugned order passed
by the Assistant Commissioner .
5. In the considered opinion of this Court, having
regard to peculiar facts and circumstances of this case,
NC: 2024:KHC:8968
this Court has to deviate from the position taken in the
case of Sri. Krishna Lagatagere (supra). This court should
take note of the fact that the petitioner has succeeded in
obtaining a judgment and decree at the hands of the
competent Civil Court which has held the sale deed dated
15.05.2000 as invalid. In that view of the matter, this
Court is also of the considered opinion that when the
Competent Civil Court has held a sale deed invalid,
naturally the proceedings initiated by the Competent
Authority invoking Section 79 A-B of the Act, also is set at
naught. This Court is therefore of the considered opinion
that having regard to the invalidation of the sale deed at
the hands of the Competent Civil Court, the impugned
order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, cannot be
permitted to operate.
6. This Court therefore proceeds to pass the
following order:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
NC: 2024:KHC:8968
(ii) The impugned order passed by the Karnataka
Appellant Tribunal in Appeal No.1175/2015
dated 29.05.2019 is set aside.
(iii) The impugned order dated 07.11.2008 passed
by the Assistant Commissioner in
LRF(BNA)/37/2004-05 is also quash and set
aside.
(iv)The respondent No.3-Tahsildar, Bengaluru
North Taluk, Bengaluru is hereby directed to
delete the entry "Government" in the RTC of
the land in question, as expeditiously as
possible and that any rate within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this
order.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AMM
