IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO.693 OF 2019 (SC/ST) Between:
M/s. Aradhaya Steel Wire Pvt. Ltd., (a Company incorporated under the Companies Act) Davanagere District Davanagere – 577 002 Represented by its Managing Director Sri Mallokaradhya ... Petitioner (By Sri. S.V. Prakash, Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of revenue, M.S. Building, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere District, Davanagere – 577 002.
3. The Assistant Commissioner, Davanagere Sub Division, Davanagere – 577 002.
4. The Tahasildar, Davanagere Taluk, Davanagere – 577 002.
5. Talavara Ramappa, S/o. Hanumanthappa, Major in age, R/o. Halavarthi Village, Davanagere Taluk – 577 002, Davanagere District. ... Respondents (By Smt. B.P. Radha, AGA for R1 to R4; Notice to R5 dispensed with) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India praying to quash the notice dated 29.10.2018 issued by the R-3 produced as Annexure-N to the writ petition and also the notice dated 06.12.2018 produced as per Annexure-P to the writ petition.
This Writ Petition is coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Notice to respondent No.5 is dispensed with in view of disposal of the matter directing the Assistant Commissioner to conclude the proceedings expeditiously which in no way would prejudice the interest of respondent No.5.
2. The petitioner is said to have purchased an extent of 3 acres 36 guntas of land at Halavatti Village, Davanagere Taluk and subsequently has diverted the said land for industrial use and has established an industry by making huge investment and is running the said business enterprise in the name and style of M/s Aradhya Steel Wires Private Limited. The petitioner states that pursuant to the report at annexure-M, proceedings have been initiated by the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978.
3. The petitioner further states that noticing that the first sale was of the year 1961 and there have been subsequent sales, initiation of proceedings in the year 2018 is after an unreasonable period of delay and states that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Nekkunti Ramalakshmi Vs. State of Karnataka and another in Civil Appeal No.1390/2009 and also the judgment in Vivek M. Hinduja and others Vs. A.M.Ashwatha and others in Civil Appeal No.2167/2009 wherein the Apex Court has set aside the proceedings initiated beyond 20 years holding that action initiated after an unreasonable period of time seeking to invoke statutory provisions ought not to be entertained. The petitioner contends that in the present case issuance of notice itself is without jurisdiction in the light of the facts stated.
4. However, noticing that the petitioner has a remedy of appearing before the Assistant Commissioner in the proceedings initiated under Section 5, it would be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to appear before the Assistant Commissioner. Nonetheless, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the Assistant Commissioner ought to take note of the law laid down by the Apex Court and decide the matter expeditiously. The Apex Court, by its judgment, has created a bar on entertaining the proceedings. Assistant Commissioner could take note of the law laid down by the Apex Court and dispose of the matter in accordance with law within a period not later than ten weeks from 16.01.2019. The petitioner herein is to appear before the Assistant Commissioner on 16.01.2019 without any further notice from this court and thereafter, the proceedings would be proceeded with.
Necessary steps as regards expeditious serving of notice on respondent No.5 herein before the Assistant Commissioner ought to be taken to enable expeditious disposal of the proceedings.
In light of the above said observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ag/NR