High Court Directs Deputy Commissioner to Expedite Disposal of Appeals Under Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act, 1978. Petitioner, a respondent in appeals under Section 5A, sought mandamus for expeditious disposal; court directed disposal within three months.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, P. Basavaraju, was a respondent in two appeals bearing PTCL Nos. 19/2012-13 and 06/2013-14 filed under Section 5A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, pending before the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur District. The petitioner filed two writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the Deputy Commissioner to dispose of the appeals expeditiously. The court noted that the petitioner had previously filed W.P. Nos. 6910/2014 and 6909/2014 with identical prayers, which were disposed of on 20.02.2014 and 16.10.2014 respectively with directions for expeditious disposal. However, the appeals remained pending. The court, considering the delay, directed the Deputy Commissioner to dispose of the appeals within three months from the date of receipt of the order. The petitions were disposed of accordingly.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Expedition of Pending Proceedings - Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, Section 5A - Petitioner, a respondent in appeals under Section 5A, sought a writ of mandamus to direct the Deputy Commissioner to dispose of the appeals expeditiously. The court, noting that earlier petitions with similar prayers were disposed of with directions for expeditious disposal, directed the Deputy Commissioner to dispose of the appeals within three months from the date of receipt of the order. (Paras 1-3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Deputy Commissioner should be directed to dispose of pending appeals under Section 5A of the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act, 1978 expeditiously.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court directed the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur District to dispose of the appeals bearing PTCL Nos. 19/2012-13 and 06/2013-14 within three months from the date of receipt of the order. The writ petitions were disposed of.

Law Points

  • Writ of mandamus
  • expedition of pending appeals
  • Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act
  • 1978
  • Section 5A
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2017 LawText (KAR) (06) 17

Writ Petition No.33287/2016 C/W Writ Petition No.33288/2016 (SC/ST)

2017-06-01

A.N. Venugopala Gowda

Sri Jagdish Shastri (for petitioner), Sri A.G. Shivanna, AAG along with Sri M.A. Subramani, HCGP (for respondents)

P. Basavaraju

The Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur District and The Asst. Commissioner, Tumkur Sub-Division

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition seeking mandamus for expeditious disposal of appeals under Section 5A of the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act, 1978.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Deputy Commissioner to dispose of appeals PTCL 19/2012-13 and PTCL 06/2013-14 expeditiously.

Filing Reason

The appeals under Section 5A of the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act, 1978 were pending before the Deputy Commissioner, and the petitioner sought their expeditious disposal.

Previous Decisions

Earlier writ petitions W.P. Nos. 6910/2014 and 6909/2014 with identical prayers were disposed of on 20.02.2014 and 16.10.2014 respectively with directions for expeditious disposal.

Issues

Whether the Deputy Commissioner should be directed to dispose of pending appeals under Section 5A of the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act, 1978 expeditiously.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that despite earlier directions for expeditious disposal, the appeals remained pending, necessitating a fresh writ of mandamus.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that when earlier directions for expeditious disposal have not been complied with, a fresh writ of mandamus can be issued to ensure timely disposal of pending proceedings.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioner, arrayed as a respondent, in Appeal bearing PTCL Nos. 19/2012-13 and 06/2013-14, filed under S.5A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 before the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur District, filed these petitions asking for issue of a writ of mandamus to decide the appeals with expedition. W.P. Nos.6910/2014 and 6909/2014 filed by the petitioner with an identical prayer was disposed of on 20.02.2014 and 16.10.2014 respectively with an order for expeditious disposal. Hence, the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur District is directed to dispose of the appeals bearing PTCL Nos.19/2012-13 and 06/2013-14, within three months from the date of receipt of this order.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed W.P. Nos. 6910/2014 and 6909/2014 seeking expeditious disposal of the same appeals, which were disposed of on 20.02.2014 and 16.10.2014 respectively with directions for expeditious disposal. Subsequently, the petitioner filed the present writ petitions (33287/2016 and 33288/2016) as the appeals remained pending.

Acts & Sections

  • Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978: 5A
  • Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Convicts Directors for Default in Filing Statement of Affairs Under Section 454(5) of Companies Act, 1956 — Failure to Submit Statement Despite Repeated Court Orders and Notices Constitutes Offence Without Reasonable Excuse.
Related Judgement
High Court High Court Directs Deputy Commissioner to Expedite Disposal of Appeals Under Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act, 1978. Petitioner, a respondent in appeals under Section 5A, sought mandamus for expeditious disposal; court directed disposal within three months...