IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT APPEAL NO.1705 OF 2016 (SC/ST) BETWEEN:
SRI JITHENDRA SON OF MANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, RESIDENT OF: KAGINELLI, SHIKARIPURA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 427.
(BY SRI S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAGAR SUB-DIVISION, SAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.
...APPELLANT 3. SRI NAGALINGAPPA SON OF HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, RESIDENT OF: KAGINELLI, SHIKARIPURA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 427.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-1 AND R-2;
SRI GIRISH BANDI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 (ABSENT)) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT DATED 18.03.2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO.32645 OF 2010 CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT IN WRIT PETITION NO.32645 OF 2010 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND ETC.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 18-3-2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No.32645 of 2010 allowing the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders therein, the respondent No.3 has filed this appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order of the learned Single Judge is erroneous. That the learned Single Judge has wrongly referred to the case of PADMA SUNDAR RAO (DEAD) AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS reported in (2002)3 SCC 533. The question of law that arises for consideration is whether a lease could also be considered as a grant. Various Supreme Court Judgments were relied upon on the very issue. However, the learned Single Judge did not accept the same and has wrongly referred to PADMA SUNDAR RAO case. Hence, he pleads that the appeal be allowed.
3. The counsel for respondent No.3 is absent.
4. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that appropriate relief is called for. It has since been held by a catena of Judgments, as referred to by the learned Single Judge in para -8 of the order that the lease of the land comes within the definition of a ‘grant’ Therefore, the lease cannot be substituted for a granted land. Therefore, even if it is a lease that has been granted, in the eyes of law, it has to be considered as a ‘grant’. The Judgment referred to by the learned Single Judge in PADMA SUNDAR RAO’s case is a matter for interpretation on Statutes. In our considered view, that has no relevance to the facts involved herein. The question involved herein is whether a lease amounts to a grant. In our view, the same is not covered by the Judgment in PADMA SUDNAR case. Therefore, the reference placed thereon by the learned Single Judge is misplaced.
Under these circumstances, the Writ Appeal is allowed.
1) The order dated 18-3-2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.32645 of 2010 is set aside.
2) Writ petition is restored to file. The matter requires to be reconsidered afresh by the learned Single Judge on merits, based on the aforesaid observations.
3) In view of long passage of time, the learned Single Judge is requested to dispose off the Petition as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Rsk/-