Karnataka High Court
Smt. Sarojamma vs The Deputy Commissioner on 5 November, 2024
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44482-DB
WA No. 1222 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1222 OF 2023 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SAROJAMMA
W/O SHIVALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT NO.520, MANGALA BORE VILLAGE
KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANGALA POST
MANDYA TALUK
AND DISTRICT-571 403
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. Y. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
by SHAKAMBARI
Location: HIGH MANDYA DISTRICT
COURT OF MANDYA-571 401
KARNATAKA
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MANDYA SUB DIVISION
MANDYA-571 401
3. SRI. M.K. PUTTASWAMY
S/O KALE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44482-DB
WA No. 1222 of 2023
4. SRI. KEMPE GOWDA
S/O KALE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.3 AND 4 ARE
RESIDIDNG AT MANGALA VILLAGE
KOTHATTI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 403
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI,
ORDER OR WRIT OF LIKE NATURE QUASHING THE ORDER
DATED 03.07.2023 PASSED IN WP No. 8069/2023 (SC-ST) ON
THE FILE OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT AND DISMISS THE SAID WRIT PETITION AND GRANT
COSTS AND SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HONOURABLE
COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:44482-DB
WA No. 1222 of 2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
Appellant-daughter of original grantee is before this
Court, aggrieved by the learned Single Judge's order dated
03.07.2023 in W.P.No.8069/2023 allowing writ petition,
setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated
29.02.2020 remanding the matter to the Assistant
Commissioner to consider afresh the restoration
application filed by appellant's father.
2. Though the appeal is listed for preliminary
hearing taken up for disposed with consent.
3. Heard learned counsel Sri Y.Nagaraj for learned
counsel Sri C.Shankar Reddy appearing for the appellant
and Smt.B.Sukanya Baliga, learned Additional Government
Advocate for respondents.
4. Brief facts of the case are that, the father of the
appellant was granted land in terms of Grant Certificate
dated 24.06.1953. The original grantee-father of the
NC: 2024:KHC:44482-DB
appellant alienated the said granted land under registered
Sale Deed dated 08.02.1985 to one Sri H.B.Shivananju.
Thereafter, the said granted land has changed hands
twice. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are 3rd purchaser under
Sale Deed dated 17.11.1988. Thereafter, an application for
restoration was filed on 10.04.2013 invoking the
provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands)
Act, 1978 (for short 'the Act'). The 2nd respondent-
Assistant Commissioner by order dated 10.08.2017
allowed the application and ordered for restoration.
Respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed appeal before the
1st respondent-Deputy Commissioner and Deputy
Commissioner by order dated 29.02.2020 allowed the
appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration to
the 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner. Challenging
the order of the Assistant Commissioner as well as the
Deputy Commissioner, respondent Nos.3 and 4 were
before this Court in W.P.No.8069/2023. Learned Single
Judge by order dated 03.07.2023 allowed the writ petition
NC: 2024:KHC:44482-DB
and set aside the order passed by both 1st and 2nd
respondents solely on the ground of delay and latches.
Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.3 before the
writ Court is in this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended
that even before the 3rd respondent/appellant herein
appeared before the writ Court, writ petition stood
disposed of on 03.07.2023. Thus, the appellant had no
opportunity to put-forth her say before the learned Single
Judge. Learned counsel would submit that the notice of
the writ petition was served on the appellant-3rd
respondent before the learned Single Judge on 01.06.2023
and the appellant was in the process of engaging the
counsel. In the meanwhile, it is submitted that on
03.07.2023 writ petition is disposed of, as such, there was
no opportunity whatsoever to defend herself in the writ
petition. Thus, only on the ground of not providing the
opportunity, the learned counsel for the appellant prays
for allowing the writ petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:44482-DB
6. Learned AGA Smt. B.Sukanya Baliga on behalf
of respondent Nos.1 and 2 supports the order passed by
the learned Single Judge and prays for dismissal of the
appeal.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the writ appeal papers, we are of the
view that no ground is made out in the order impugned in
the appeal for the following reasons:
Admittedly, the father of the appellant was granted
land in terms of Grant Certificate dated 24.06.1953.
Father of the appellant sold the property under the
registered Sale Deed dated 08.02.1985. Respondent Nos.3
and 4 are the present owners having purchased under
registered Sale Deed dated 17.11.1988. Admittedly, the
application under Section 4 of 1978 Act was filed for
restoration after lapse of more than 28 years from the
date of first sale. There is inordinate delay and latches.
No explanation is forthcoming either in the writ petition or
in this appeal with regard to the delay.
NC: 2024:KHC:44482-DB
8. A person who sleeps over his right would not be
entitled for any relief under the discretionary jurisdiction of
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned Single
Judge rightly allowed the writ petition and set aside the
order passed by the 1st respondent-Assistant
Commissioner solely on the ground of delay and latches
placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi Vs. State of
Karnataka and another reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232.
9. The only contention of the learned counsel for
the appellant is that she had no opportunity to defend
herself before the learned Single Judge. Admittedly, notice
of the writ petition was served on the appellant on
01.06.2023 and appellant has not taken any steps to
represent before the Court immediately or till the writ
petition was disposed of. From the date of service of
notice in the writ petition, the appellant had more than
one month time to make arrangements to appear before
the Court, even otherwise, providing opportunity to this
NC: 2024:KHC:44482-DB
appellant would be an empty formality in the absence of
explanation for the inordinate in involving the provision of
PTCL Act. Thus, we do not find any merit in this writ
appeal.
Writ Appeal stands rejected.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
PSJ
