IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT APPEAL No.4511 OF 2015 (SC-ST) BETWEEN:
1. P. JAYAMMA AGED 62 YEARS, WIFE OF LATE NARASIMHAIAH, 2. YATISH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, SON OF LATE NARASIMHAIAH, BOTH APPELLANTS 1 AND 2 RESIDING AT BOMMARASANAHALLI VILLAGE, HANDENAHALLI POST, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 130.
3. MANGALA GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, SON OF LATE NARASIMHAIAH, WIFE OF H.B.RAJU, RESIDING AT HONNUDIKE VILLAGE, GULUR HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 573 020.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI JAMAL SAIT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B.N. SHIVANNA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. SRI N. SOMASHEKAR, SON OF NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 16, 1ST ‘E’ CROSS, SARAKKI, J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 078.
3. SRI B. DEVARAJ SON OF LATE DASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT SUBRAMANYAPURA, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK – 560 061.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI N. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2;
SRI B. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.41143 OF 2014 DATED 03.09.2015.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 03.09.2015 passed in writ petition No.41143 of 2014 by the learned Single Judge, in dismissing the writ petition, the petitioners therein have filed this appeal.
2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the learned Single Judge.
3. The petitioner claims to be the wife and children of one late Narasimhaiah, who is the brother of B. Devaraj, respondent No.3. That the land in question was granted in favour of Dasappa, the original grantee, who is the father of Devaraj and late Narasimhaiah. The said Dasappa had another son who has not been shown nor made as a party in the petition. The three sons succeeded to the granted land and have interest in the property in question. In terms of the official memorandum dated 23.11.2013, the Deputy Commissioner granted permission under Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain land) Act, 1978, to Devaraju, respondent No.3 to sell the granted land in survey No.122 of Uttarahalli Village, Bengaluru South Taluk measuring 1 acre 30 guntas, with a condition that the applicant, Devaraju shall purchase agricultural land in any other place within one month and report the same to the Deputy Commissioner. Thereafter, the land shall be sold in favour of Somashekar, respondent No.2 with whom there was already an agreement. Thereafter, registered sale deed was executed on 02.12.2013 in favour of Somashekar, respondent No.2, conveying the property for a sale consideration of almost Rupees Four Crores, which has been received by the vendors. Thereafter, the instant writ petition was filed seeking to quash the permission granted by the Deputy Commissioner for alienation of the land as well as to quash sale deed.
4. The learned Single Judge while considering the contentions rejected the petition and has observed that the writ petition is filed after the sale deed has been executed and the sale consideration of almost of Rupees Four Crores has been received. The Deputy Commissioner had granted permission and on the basis of which, sale deed has been executed.
5. On hearing learned counsels, we find no merit in the appeal. The sale has been effected by virtue of the statutory permission granted by the State Government for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe persons and the permission granted has been acted upon and the land in question has been sold for almost Rs.4 crores. Having utilized the said amount, the instant petition is filed.
6. Primarily, the entire case seems to be a fraud committed by the petitioners. Moreover, the permission granted by the Deputy Commissioner does not infringe the rights of the petitioners. More or less, it is a black mail against the respondents. Having validly sold the property themselves in the manner known to law on the permission being granted by the State Government, the petitioners now cannot turn around and challenge the very same permission. We find no good grounds to interfere with the well considered order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Pending I.As’. are rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE nvj