Case Note & Summary
The writ appeal arises from an order dated 29.09.2015 passed by a Single Judge in W.P.No.42727/2013 (SC/ST) which dismissed the writ petition challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 06.08.2013. The subject matter is land in Survey No.30 of Kadiganahalli Village, originally measuring 3 acres, granted to Kinchanna Bhovi under the Mysore (Personnel and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act on 15.09.1958. After his death, his children succeeded. In 1976 and 1978, Respondent No.4 (Jadhavaji Nagarwala) purchased the entire land from the legal heirs. Respondent No.1 (V. Ramprasad) purchased about 2.14 acres from Respondent No.4 on 04.09.1978. The Assistant Commissioner initiated proceedings under Sections 79-A and 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and by order dated 24.05.1996 set aside the sale deed and forfeited the land to the State. On 11.01.2005, Respondent No.3 (Smt. Gowramma) filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner seeking cancellation of the sale, and by order dated 11.07.2005, the Assistant Commissioner allowed it, forfeiting the land again. Possession was handed over to Respondent No.3 on 03.11.2005. The present appellant, Shivapal, purchased 2 acres from Respondent No.3 and other legal heirs. Various challenges, appeals, writ petitions, and a proceeding before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) ensued. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, relying on Mohammed Jaffar v. State of Karnataka and Jagadish v. State of Karnataka. The appellant contended the Single Judge erred in applying those precedents, that respondents lacked locus standi, and that fraud and impersonation vitiated the orders. The High Court Government Pleader supported the impugned order. The provided text of the judgment is incomplete, ending during the submissions of the Government Pleader. Consequently, the final decision, analysis, and directions of the Division Bench are not available in the text. The summary and other fields reflect only the matters disclosed in the partial transcript.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition and applying the ratio of Mohammed Jaffar and Jagadish cases; whether Respondent Nos.1 and 2 had locus standi to file appeals before Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and Deputy Commissioner; whether the orders suffered from fraud and impersonation vitiating the proceedings; whether the re-grant/restoration of land to Respondent No.3 was valid
Case Details
2023 LawText (KAR) (06) 57
WRIT APPEAL NO 4531 OF 2015 (SC-ST)
K. Somashekar, Umesh M Adiga
Ajesh Kumar S, Ashok B. Patil, Gopalakrishna Soodi
V. Ramprasad, Kishore Nagarwal, Gowramma, Jadhavaji Nagarawala, Prakash Babu, Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ appeal against order of Single Judge in writ petition concerning land in Survey No.30 of Kadiganahalli Village, involving issues under Karnataka Land Reforms Act and SC/ST (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside the Single Judge's order dated 29.09.2015 and quash the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 06.08.2013.
Filing Reason
Alleged errors in law, misapplication of precedents, and failure to consider fraud and impersonation; also contended respondents lacked locus standi.
Previous Decisions
Assistant Commissioner forfeited land under Land Reforms Act sections 79-A and 79-B on 24.05.1996; later, on 11.07.2005, Assistant Commissioner in SC/ST case allowed application for cancellation of sale and forfeited land, which was challenged; Deputy Commissioner allowed appeals on 06.08.2013; Single Judge dismissed writ petition on 29.09.2015.
Issues
Whether the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition and applying the ratio of Mohammed Jaffar and Jagadish cases
Whether Respondent Nos.1 and 2 had locus standi to file appeals before KAT and Deputy Commissioner
Whether the orders suffered from fraud and impersonation vitiating the proceedings
Whether the re-grant/restoration of land to Respondent No.3 was valid
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant contended that respondents 1 and 2 had no locus standi to file appeals.
Appellant argued that the Single Judge erroneously applied Mohammed Jaffar and Jagadish precedents which were distinguishable as the cases pertained to Section 48A of Land Reforms Act and pre-existing rights, while Respondent No.3 had no pre-existing right.
Appellant submitted that the Assistant Commissioner's 2005 order was not restoration but re-grant under Karnataka Land Revenue Act, hence respondents had no right or title over the property.
Appellant alleged impersonation and fraud in the proceedings, which the Single Judge failed to consider despite securing documents from KAT.
The State/Revenue Authorities supported the impugned judgment and contended that the findings were in accordance with law and required no interference.
Judgment Excerpts
The Special Deputy Commissioner of Inams Abolition, by its order dated 15.09.1958, conferred occupancy right in respect of Survey No.30 measuring 3 acres of Kadiganahalli Village of Bengaluru North Taluk in favour of one Kinchanna Bhovi @ Vaddara Channa Bhovi under the provisions of the Mysore (Personnel and Miscellaneous) Inamss Abolition Act.
The Assistant Commissioner set aside the said sale deed and forfeited the land to the State Government.
The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.
The same is challenged in the present writ appeal by urging various grounds.
Procedural History
15.09.1958: Special Deputy Commissioner of Inams Abolition conferred occupancy rights in Sy.No.30 to Kinchanna Bhovi. After his death, his sons and daughter succeeded. 1976–1978: Respondent No.4 purchased entire land from legal heirs. 04.09.1978: Respondent No.1 purchased approx 2.14 acres from Respondent No.4. 24.05.1996: Assistant Commissioner passed order under Sections 79-A and 79-B of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, setting aside sale deed and forfeiting land to State. 11.01.2005: Respondent No.3 filed application for cancellation of sale; 11.07.2005: Assistant Commissioner in SC/ST case allowed application, forfeited land, possession handed over to Respondent No.3 on 03.11.2005. Appellant purchased 2 acres from Respondent No.3 and other heirs. 2005: Appeal No.128/2005 filed by Ramu before Deputy Commissioner; allowed. W.P.No.9888/2007 filed by Respondent No.3; Single Judge allowed, quashing Deputy Commissioner's order and directing restoration of land. 06.08.2013: Deputy Commissioner allowed appeals SC/ST (A)13/2011-2012 and SC/ST(A)40/2011-2012, setting aside Assistant Commissioner's order. W.P.No.42727/2013 filed by appellant challenging Deputy Commissioner's order; dismissed by Single Judge on 29.09.2015. Present writ appeal filed under Section 4 of Karnataka High Court Act.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961: 79-A, 79-B
- Mysore (Personnel and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act:
- Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978:
- Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964:
- Karnataka High Court Act, 1961: 4
