IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN WRIT PETITION NO.5775 OF 2018 (SC/ST) BETWEEN:
1. SURESHA, S/O. PAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, 2. SMT. SHIVAMMA, W/O. B.M. PALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 3. MAVINAHANNU OBAMMA, W/O. AJJI PALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF GONUR VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: HARISH N.R., FOR SRI. B.M. SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATES) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA-577 501.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION, CHITRADURGA-577 501.
3. SMT. PAPAMMA, W/O. LATE SURAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDENT OF GONUR VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK-577 501.
4. K.R. PRAKASHKUMAR, S/O. KASHIRADHAKRISHNASHETTY, RADHAKRUSH STORES, SANTEPETE, CHITRADURGA TOWN-577 501.
5. RUDRAMUNIYAPPA, DEAD BY LRS, A.JAYAMMA, W/O. LATE RUDRAMUYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, HADADI POLICE ROAD, NEAR BAKERY, NITTUVALLI, DAVANAGERE-577 001. …RESPONDENTS (DELETED R5 AS PER AMENDEMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER THE ORDER DATED 25.10.2019. ) (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, HCGP FOR R1 & R2, SRI. H.V. SHYAME GOWDA, ADV. FOR R-3, R-4 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN CASE NO.SCPTL/CTA/05/2012-13, DATED 21.11.2017 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C TO THE WRIT PETITION AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN CASE NO.SCPTL (A)-4/2018 DATED 25.01.2018 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F TO THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioners assailing the order passed by Respondent No.1 – Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga dated 25.01.2018 (Annexure ‘F’) by rejecting the interim application filed by the petitioners for staying the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 21.11.2017.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP. Respondent No.4 is served, absent. Respondent No.3 appeared through counsel, remained absent.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the land in Sy.No.116 New No.154/2, measuring 4 acres 24 guntas said to be granted by the Government to one Sooraiah on 29.07.1942. Later, the same was sold to one Kandavadi Rudramma on 02.03.1956 and subsequently, again the sale deed was effected on 08.07.1969 in favour of Sri. Prakash Kumar. Thereafter, Sri. Prakash Kumar sold the land in terms of sale deed to the 3rd petitioner on 22.01.1983 and in view of the commencement of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer Certain Lands) Act, 1978, the legal heirs of the grantee filed an application for restoration of the land before the Assistant Commissioner, Chitradurga Sub Division, which came to be allowed and the land has been restored to the Grantees vide order dated 21.11.2017. Assailing the same, the petitioners have filed the appeal under Section 5(1) of the Karnataka SC ST (PTCL) Act, before the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga. Along with the Appeal memo, an interim application also filed for staying the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner which came to be rejected by the Deputy Commissioner – Annexure ‘F’ dated 25.01.2018.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the 1st sale deed has been effected in the year 1956 and thereafter, the second sale deed was effected in the year 1969 and thereafter two sale deeds were effected. There was an inordinate delay in filing the restoration application. That being a case, the purchasers also there in possession from the year 1956 onwards. The order under challenge before the Deputy Commissioner against order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is pending and if the interim order is not granted in favour of the petitioners, the very purpose of filing the appeal would be frustrated. Therefore, it is necessary to stay the order of the Assistant Commissioner, which was not properly considered and no reason has been assigned by the Deputy Commissioner while rejecting the application. Hence, this writ petition.
5. On perusal of the records, it is seen from the records that the Deputy Commissioner has not assigned any reason for rejecting the interim application i.e,. on 25.01.2018. Of course, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are the authorities under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer Certain Lands) Act, 1978 and they are having power to set aside the sale deeds if it is in violation of the Grant Rules in view of the commencement of the PTCL Act. However, the Deputy Commissioner being the Appellate Court required to reconsider the evidence on record and the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 21.11.2017. Such being the case, until the disposal of the appeal by the Deputy Commissioner, the order of the Assistant Commissioner will have to be stayed and there shall be an order and maintaining the status-quo over the property in dispute. Such being the case, the Deputy Commissioner not properly considered the I.A. Accordingly, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga is required to be set aside. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be allowed.
6. The writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is hereby set aside. However, the parties are directed to maintain status- quo over the suit schedule property until disposal of the appeal by the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District.
SD/- JUDGE Snc