IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN WRIT PETITION No.51145 of 2019 (SC/ST) BETWEEN SUNANDAMMA @ SUNANDA W/O. RAMAKRISHNA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT. HOUSING BOARD COLONY, T.R.NAGAR, CHALLAKERE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 522.
(BY SRI VIRUPAKSHAIAH P.H., ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA – 577 501.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION, CHITRADURGA – 577 501.
4. BOMMAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs, ...PETITIONER (i). BORAMMA W/O. DADDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, (ii). CHANDRANNA S/O. BOMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS (iii). THIPANNA S/O. LATE BOMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, (iv). B. PALAIAH S/O. BOMMAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs, (a) NAGARATNAMMA W/O. LATE PALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, (b) B. SUVARNAMMA D/O. LATE PALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, (c) RAGHAVENDRA S/O. LATE PALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, (d) ARUNDATHI D/O. LATE PALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, (e) SREEDHARA S/O. LATE PALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT KATAPPANAHATTI, CHALLAKERE TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 522.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE EVICTION ORDER DATED 09.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE R3 AUTHORITY VIDE ANNEXURE-E HOLDING THE SAME IS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.01.2019 PASSED BY THE R3 AUTHORITY VIDE ANNEXURE-B.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Learned HCGP to take notice for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
2. This petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the eviction order dated 09.10.2019 vide Annexure-E. It is contended by the petitioner that the land in survey No.59/6 situated at Challakere town has been purchased by the petitioner in the year 1993. The petitioner also belongs to the Scheduled Tribe. The land has been granted to Bommaiah in the year 1957 and the Assistant Commissioner on the application filed by the legal representatives of the grantee resumed the land and restored to the grantees vide Annexure-B dated 25.01.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed an appeal under Section 5-A of the PTCL Act before the Deputy Commissioner which is pending as per Annexure-D and the petitioner also filed an interim application for staying the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner not yet considered. In the meanwhile, the Assistant Commissioner issued the notice for the eviction as per Annexure-E, therefore, prayed for staying the said order and quashing the same.
3. Learned HCGP raised the preliminary objection on the ground that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-B has been already challenged by the petitioner filed an appeal and also I.A. for staying the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in favour of respondent No.5. Such being the case, until disposal of the appeal by the Deputy Commissioner, this writ petition is not maintainable and hence, prayed for dismissing the same.
4. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has suffered the order from the Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-B dated 25.01.2019, wherein, the Assistant Commissioner resumed and restored the granted land in favour of the legal representatives of the grantee that is respondent No.4 as per Annexure-D and the present petitioner had already filed an appeal under Section 5-A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred as ‘PTCL Act’). Though, the appeal came to be filed on 12.03.2019, but matter has taken up by the Deputy Commissioner only on 13.11.2019 and posted the matter to 29.1.2020. Annexure-C shows that there is an interim application filed by the petitioner for staying the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner which is not yet considered. When the matter already seized by the Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of Section 5-A PTCL Act, until disposal of the said appeal this petition is not maintainable. The petitioner is required to seek appropriate remedy for staying the order of the Assistant Commissioner only before the Deputy Commissioner in the appeal filed by him. Therefore, until exhausting the remedy before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5-A of the PTCL Act, this writ petition is not maintainable. However, it is necessary to issue direction to the Deputy Commissioner for considering the I.A filed by the petitioner as early as possible.
Accordingly, I pass the following order:
i) Writ Petition is dismissed.
ii) However, the direction issued to the Deputy Commissioner to consider the I.A. filed by the petitioner for an interim stay of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner.
SD/- JUDGE GBB