Skip to content


Chennakeshavaiah Vs. The Special Deputy Commissioner and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Karnataka High Court

Decided On

Case Number

Writ Appeal No. 2331 of 2014 (SC/ST)

Judge

Appellant

Chennakeshavaiah

Respondent

The Special Deputy Commissioner and Others

Excerpt:


.....community €“ on perusal of records, assistant commissioner, allowed petition and directed resumption/restoration of possession of land by state which is challenged by petitioner which was dismissed by single judge €“ hence instant petition issue is €“ whether order of single judge, which held that petitioner was not a party to proceedings either before assistant commissioner or before deputy commissioner and, therefore, said order did not bind him is maintainable court held - single judge, in court view, rightly dismissed petition holding that petitioner was not a party to proceedings either before assistant commissioner or before deputy commissioner and, therefore, said order did not bind him €“ further, both parties have amicably settled their differences out of court and, so nothing survives for consideration in appeal - opinion on rights and title of parties over land in question not expressed by court - appeal dismissed. para 11, 14, 15 comparative citation: 2015 (5) kantlj 335, .....the land in question was granted to a member of scheduled caste community. even the tahsildar has failed to produce any document to show that it was actually a granted land and consequently, the order of the assistant commissioner was set aside. 9. the parties to the proceedings before the deputy commissioner including the state have not challenged the said order. 10. the appellant approached this court challenging the order passed by the deputy commissioner as well as the order passed by the hon'ble single judge. 11. the hon'ble single judge, in our considered view, rightly dismissed the writ petition holding that the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings either before the assistant commissioner or before the deputy commissioner and, therefore, the said order did not bind him. 12. mr. n.s. bhat, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, submits that this client accepts that it is not a granted land covered by said act, and that the appellant has preferred the writ petition under misconception and, therefore, the appellant is not willing to proceed with the present appeal. 13. mr. b. vachan, learned advocate appearing for respondent 10, on instructions, submits that.....

Judgment:


1. Though the matter is listed today for orders as regards compliance of office objection, with the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

2. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated July 30, 2014, passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No.25612 of 2010.

3. By the order impugned, the Hon'ble Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that as the petitioner was not a party either before the Assistant Commissioner or before the Deputy Commissioner in the proceedings initiated under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, he cannot maintain the writ petition without seeking leave of the Court.

4. Mr. Chennarayappa-respondent 3 in this appeal applied for restoration of possession of the land under the said Act, which was alienated by his grandfather on the allegation that the land was granted to his grandfather between 1940 and 1950 as he was a member of Scheduled Caste Community.

5. It is contended that although alienation of the land was in late 1970's, the grantee is entitled for restoration of possession of the land on the ground that there is a complete prohibition of transfer of granted land by a member of Scheduled Caste Community.

6. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the Assistant Commissioner, by order dated October 18, 2008, has proceeded solely on the basis of a tippani copy of the year 1940 recording, inter alia, that the land in question was granted during the year 1940. Consequently, the Assistant Commissioner allowed the prayer of respondent 3 and directed resumption/restoration of possession of the land by the State.

7. Being aggrieved, respondent 9-the purchaser, had preferred an appeal before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, which was registered as No.SC.ST (A) 255 of 2008-2009.

8. By an order dated December 23, 2009, the Deputy Commissioner held that the tippani copy was not the sole and reliable document inasmuch as there was no indication in the said tippani copy of the year 1940 as to the nature of grant. Further, except the said tippani copy, there was no other material either before the Assistant Commissioner or before the Deputy Commissioner to show that the land in question was granted to a member of Scheduled Caste Community. Even the Tahsildar has failed to produce any document to show that it was actually a granted land and consequently, the order of the Assistant Commissioner was set aside.

9. The parties to the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner including the State have not challenged the said order.

10. The appellant approached this Court challenging the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner as well as the order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge.

11. The Hon'ble Single Judge, in our considered view, rightly dismissed the writ petition holding that the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings either before the Assistant Commissioner or before the Deputy Commissioner and, therefore, the said order did not bind him.

12. Mr. N.S. Bhat, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, submits that this client accepts that it is not a granted land covered by said Act, and that the appellant has preferred the writ petition under misconception and, therefore, the appellant is not willing to proceed with the present appeal.

13. Mr. B. Vachan, learned Advocate appearing for respondent 10, on instructions, submits that the land in question is not a granted land and, therefore, the prohibition under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 is not applicable.

14. Further, we are informed by both the Counsel that the parties have amicably settled their differences out of Court.

15. In view of the submissions made by learned Advocates for the parties, nothing survives for our consideration in this appeal.

16. Without expressing any opinion on the rights and title of the parties over the land in question, this writ appeal is dismissed.

We make no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //