Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Smt T S Poovamma vs The Tahsildar And Others

High Court Of Karnataka|26 February, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.7854/2019 (GM – CPC) BETWEEN:
SMT.T.S.POOVAMMA W/O C.S.GANAPATHY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT KONGANA VILLAGE PONNAMPET HOBLI VIRAJPET TALUK SOUTH KODAGU. ... PETITIONER [BY SRI RANJAN KUMAR.K., ADV.] AND:
1. THE TAHSILDAR VIRAJPET TALUK MADIKERE-571218.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KODAGU DISTRICT MADIKERI-571201.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KODAGU DISTRICT MADIKERI-571201.
4. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA 101, 1ST FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA Dr. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI D.R.ANANDEESWAR, HCGP.] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 01.08.2017 IN O.S.NO.181/2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE [SR.DVN] AND JMFC AT VIRAJPET, [ANNEXURE-M] AND REMIT BACK TO THE CASE TO THE SAME COURT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has challenged the order dated 01.08.2017 in O.S.No.181/2015 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge [Sr.Dvn] and JMFC at Virajpet.
2. It is the contention of the petitioner that he claiming to be an unauthorized cultivator of land bearing Sy.No.141/E and Sy.No.136/1B totally measuring 4.45 acres of Kongana Village, Virajpet Taluk submitted an application seeking for grant of the said land, the same was granted to him by the order of the respondent No.1 dated 08.11.2010. It is submitted that in view of the interference made by the respondents with the petitioner’s peaceful possession, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.181/2015 for declaration and injunction. In the said suit proceedings, on the memo filed by the Government Pleader, the suit has been transferred to the Special Court as per Section 20 of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 ['Act' for short]. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Learned counsel placing reliance on the order of this Court in the case of Sri.Gangadhara and Others V/s. The State of Karnataka and Others [W.P.No.35369/2018 dated 12.10.2018] would submit that no valid reasons are assigned by the Trial Court to transfer the suit to the Special Court. The grant order being made in favour of the petitioner on 08.11.2010, the petitioner was in absolute possession of the suit property, the grant order was cancelled by the respondent No.2 on 16.11.2017 subsequent to the order impugned herein. Hence, on the date of the possession of the impugned order, there was absolutely no cause of action for the Trial Court to transfer the suit to the Special Court. Hence, the order impugned calls for interference by this Court.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents justifying the impugned order submitted that cogent and valid reasons are assigned by the Trial Court for transferring the suit to the Special Court. In the circumstances, the reliance placed by the learned counsel on the order of this Court in Sri.Gangadhara and Others supra is not applicable and accordingly seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. It is true that this Court has observed in Sri.Gangadhara and Others supra, that the Special Court without examining as to whether the suit would fall within the jurisdiction of the Special Court could not have transferred the matter to the Special Court. But however in the present proceedings, ample reasons are assigned by the Trial Court. More particularly relating to Section 7[1] and Section 20 of the Act and its applicability to the present facts. No doubt, the grant order is cancelled subsequent to passing of the orders of the Trial Court that would not invalidate the order of transfer made by the Trial Court.
For the reasons aforesaid, no jurisdictional error is found in the order impugned. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Smt T S Poovamma vs The Tahsildar And Others

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
26 February, 2019
Judges
  • S Sujatha