IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO.58211/2018 (SC/ST) Between:
Sri. H.A. Krishna Reddy S/o. Late Atti Reddy, Aged about 74 years, R/at. No.202/1, 29th Main, 2nd Cross, BTM Layout, 1st Stage, Bengaluru – 560 068.
Senior Citizen benefit not claimed. …Petitioner (By Sri. Nanja Reddy P.N., Advocate) And:
1. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, K.G.Road, Bengaluru – 560 009.
2. The Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division, Kandhaya Bhavan, Bengaluru – 560 009.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Civil Rights Enforcement Cell, Cauvery Bhavan, 2nd Floor, ‘F’ Block, Bengaluru – 560 009.
4. Sri. P.Kadirappa S/o. Late Narasimha @ Narasimhaiah, Aged about 65 years, R/at. Doddakanahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru District – 560 102. ... Respondents (By Smt. Savithramma, HCGP for R-1 to R-3; Notice to R4 - dispensed with) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the proceedings in K.SC.ST-Appeal.PTCL.No.168/2017 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, respondent No.1 (Annexure-F) and the proceedings in SP-Application No.67/CRE- Cell/Bengaluru Region/2018, Bengaluru dated 19.12.2018 (Annexure-G) pending on the file of respondent No.3 as the same are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi V/s The State of Karnataka and others reported in ILR KAR 1352 and the Karnataka Police Act and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner is the purchaser of the land under sale deed dated 02.06.2014 and it is submitted that the petitioner’s vendor had in turn purchased the said land on 17.03.1971. The petitioner states that 4th respondent has initiated proceedings before the 2nd respondent– Assistant Commissioner under Section 5 of The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 seeking for restoration of the land in Sy.No.49/1 measuring 2 acres. By order dated 08.08.2016, the Assistant Commissioner has dismissed the application filed by the 4th respondent and against the said order, the 4th respondent is said to have preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, which is still pending adjudication.
2. In the meanwhile, the petitioner submits that the notice has been issued by the 3rd respondent with respect to matters which are intertwined with the appeal now being decided by the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner further states that he has been harassed by the police authorities and despite having submitted all documents and bringing it to the notice of the police authorities, the appeal filed by the 4th respondent is pending before the Deputy Commissioner, the police authorities are continuing with the proceedings pursuant to the notice at Annexure – G.
3. The petitioner further contends that dehors the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner, the order of Assistant Commissioner, is in fact correct and the very proceedings initiated by the grantees is required to be rejected, in view of the fact that the proceedings has been initiated after unreasonable period of time and this position of law being well settled by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi V/s State of Karnataka and another reported in ILR 2018 KAR 1352. The petitioner further states that the proceedings before the 3rd respondent including the notice at Annexure – G is required to be quashed.
4. Learned HCGP submits that the present petition is not maintainable and that the question of passing any writ as regards the order of Assistant Commissioner would not arise, as the appeal is pending before the Deputy Commissioner.
5. Heard both the sides. As regards the relief sought for by the petitioner to quash the proceedings pending in appeal No.PTCL/168/2017 is concerned, it is noted that the statutory appeal filed by the 4th respondent is pending and the petitioner could raise all contentions including that the proceedings that have been initiated at the instance of 4th respondent after unreasonable period of time and are liable to be dismissed. The said contentions are required to taken note of by the Deputy Commissioner in the light of the judgment passed in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi V/s. State of Karnataka and another while disposing the appeal.
6. In the light of contentions raised by the petitioner all that could be said is that the Deputy Commissioner is required to take note of the contentions raised by the petitioner referred to above and dispose of the appeal at the earliest not later than four months from today. As regards the contentions of the petitioner relating to the notice at Annexure – G, all that could be observed is that the authorities concerned have to take note of the fact that the appeal is still pending before the Deputy Commissioner and the enquiry, if any, pursuant to the notice at Annexure – G should not be a proceeding so as to interfere in the pending proceedings and when the matter is still to be adjudicated. The police authorities ought to take note of the pending proceedings and take appropriate action as regards their notice at Annexure-G in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of, subject to above observations.
Sd/-
JUDGE KG/KLV