IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.1350/2019 (SC-ST) Between:
1. Lalithamma, W/o B. Ekanthappa, Age 51 years, Agriculturist.
2. B.Suresh, S/o B. Ekanthappa, Age 28 years, Agriculturist.
3. Durugamma, W/o Thippaiah, Age 53 years, Agriculturist.
4. Shivakumar, S/o B. Thippaiah, Age 53 years, Agriculturist.
5. Vijayakumar, S/o B. Thippaiah, Age 28 years, Agriculturist.
All are R/o Nayakanahatti Village, Challakere Taluk – 577 522, Chitradurga District. … Petitioners (By Sri R.Shashidhara, Advocate) And:
1. The Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District, Chitradurga – 577 501.
2. The Assistant Commissioner, Chitradurga Sub Division, Chitradurga – 577 501.
3. Basamma, W/o Kunta Thippaiah, Age 61 years, Agriculturist.
4. Thippeswamy, S/o Kunta Thippaiah, Age 39 years, Agriculturist.
5. Ravi S/o Kunta Thippaiah, Age 37 years, Agriculturist.
6. Rudraiah, S/o Kunta Thippaiah, Age 35 years, Agriculturist.
7. Suresh, S/o Kunta Thippaiah, Age 33 years, Agriculturist.
8. Raju, S/o Kunta Thippaiah, Age 31 years, Agriculturist.
The respondents No.3 to 8 are R/o Nayakanahatti Village, Challakere Taluk – 577 522, Chitradurga District. … Respondents (By Smt. Savithramma, HCGP for R-1 and R-2) ***** This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order passed by the R-1 Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga dated 28.12.2018 vide Annexure-E to the writ petition and etc.
This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioners, who are the purchasers of land in Sy.No.277/3 (new Sy.No.887), measuring 1 acre 20 guntas at Nayakanahatti Village, Kasaba Hobli, Challakere Taluk is said to have been granted on 29.01.1966 to one Kunta Thippaiah S/o Rudraiah. The grantee is said to have sold the property on 28.02.1973 to the husband of petitioner No.1. On 13.08.2013, the proceedings were initiated before the Assistant Commissioner for resumption and restoration of the land. The Assistant Commissioner has allowed the application on 08.12.2015 and subsequently the Assistant Commissioner has also initiated the proceedings for recovery of possession. On 02.01.2017, an appeal bearing No.SCPTL(A)-14/2016-17 had been filed before the Deputy Commissioner challenging the order of Assistant Commissioner and the petitioner had sought for stay of the operation and execution of the order of Assistant Commissioner dated 08.12.2015.
2. The petitioners state that despite making a motion for considering their interim prayer, the appeal was taken up for consideration and was adjourned on various dates. As the Deputy Commissioner did not hold Court, the matter was posted on 17.05.2017 and subsequently adjourned to 16.01.2019. The petitioners sought for advancement of the matter and for consideration of interim prayer on 19.12.2018 and the matter was then adjourned to 26.12.2018 and subsequently adjourned to 27.12.2018 on which day, the arguments of both sides were advanced. The Deputy Commissioner after having considered the contentions of both sides has rejected the prayer for interim relief.
3. The petitioners state that though their appeal has been pending, possession is said to have already resumed by the State and restored to the family of the grantee. It is further stated that for the present, they would be satisfied, if a direction is issued to the Deputy Commissioner to conclude the appeal proceedings in an expeditious manner.
4. Smt.Savithramma, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner would be concluded within a period of four months from this day.
5. Though various other contentions have been raised including that no notice had been served in the proceedings, whereby the possession is said to have been resumed by the State, however, in light of the submission by learned counsel for the petitioners that for the present, it would suffice if a direction is passed for expeditious disposal of the appeal pending before the Deputy Commissioner, no finding is recorded as regards the validity of the impugned order.
6. Taking note of the submission of learned Government Pleader, this petition is disposed of without recording any finding as to the correctness of the order at Annexure-E dated 28.12.2018. However, the respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner is directed to dispose of appeal bearing No.SCPTL(A)-14/2016-17 within a period not later than three months.
Sd/- JUDGE VGR