IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE Mr. L.NARAYANA SWAMY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.898 OF 2019 (SC-ST) BETWEEN:
A.M.G.SURENDAR S/O LATE M.D.ANTHONY RAJ AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.536, SECTOR-3, R.K.PURAM, NEW DELHI-110 022 REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER Mr.A.M.STANISLAUS AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. ...APPELLANT (By Sri HARISH.V.S., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. Mr.K.V.MUNIRAJAPPA S/O Mr.OBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT KARAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 114.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALAPURA SUB-DIVISION DODDABALAPURA-561 203.
3. THE TAHSILDAR HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 114. (By Sri S.H.PRASHANTH, AGA FOR R2 & R3) ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 28/02/2019 IN W.P.NO. 8871/2019 [SC/ST] AND ALLOW THE SAME AS PRAYED FOR.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. The appellant who is the petitioner had challenged the order dated 19.12.2018 (Annexure – G) passed by the Assistant Commissioner-Respondent No.2, Doddaballapura Sub-Division, Doddaballapura wherein Respondent No.2 had allowed the applications of the applicants and directed them to resume the land. Against which, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.8871 of 2019. The prayer before the learned single Judge is to set aside the order dated 19.12.2018 and the learned single Judge disposed of the matter with an observation that the petitioner had not availed the remedy available to him under Section 5-A of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 before the Deputy Commissioner and also permitted to exhaust the appeal remedy under the provisions of law.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is enormous delay in approaching the Deputy Commissioner by him and he was not afforded any opportunity of hearing and the impugned order came to be passed by the second respondent without issuing notice to the appellant and prays to set aside the impugned order.
4. We have perused the records. On perusal of the order passed by the learned single Judge, we are of the view that the learned single Judge has not passed any order on merits, but he has relegated the party to avail the alternative remedy of appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. When such being the case, the order passed by the learned single Judge is just and proper and no grounds are made out to interfere with the said order.
With the above observations, this appeal is dismissed, keeping open all the contentions of the respective parties.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE DH