Hanumanthaiah Vs. N. Ramegowda and ors.

Hanumanthaiah vs N. Ramegowda and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Karnataka Decided Jan 18, 2002

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/375320

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/375320
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: H. Rangavittalachar, J.
Decided On: Jan 18, 2002
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 48005 of 2001
Subject: Property
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Sections 152 & 153: [N.K.Patil, J] Amendment of judgment/Decree Held, The application is filed as provided under the relevant provisions of the CPC if there is a mistake or wrongly typed or there is any mistake in writing or typing and an error arising out of the occurring from an accidental slip or omission is ...

Key legal issue: Property
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 - Sections 5(3)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Hanumanthaiah

Advocate Suguna R. Reddy, Adv.

Respondent

N. Ramegowda and ors.

Advocate M.G. Anjana Murthy, High Court Government Pleader

Legal References

Acts: Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 - Sections 5(3)
Reported In: ILR2002KAR2431; 2002(2)KarLJ569

Excerpt

.....of the cpc if there is a mistake or wrongly typed or there is any mistake in writing or typing and an error arising out of the occurring from an accidental slip or omission is an error due to careless mistake or omission unintentionally made. but in the present case, detailed order has been passed by the trial court for rejecting the compromise petition as petitioner has failed to comply the orders of the court and the said suit has been dismissed in view of not adducing or leading any evidence. therefore, the court of the considered view that, in this type of litigation, there should be a finality in the matter, since the matter is pending adjudication from 1985 and petitioner having sufficient time has not chosen to file necessary application under the relevant provisions to set aside the order dated 24.7.1989 and after the lapse of nearly one and half decades, has chosen to file the petition and the same has been rightly rejected by the trial court. therefore, on merits also, petitioner has not made out any good grounds to interfere in the order passed by the trial court. -- limitation act, 1963.[c.a. no. 36/1963]. section 5: condonation of delay delay of 36 days in filing the revision petition held, mere making bald statements in the affidavit, without assigning cogent reasons is not a ground to condone the delay. on facts, held, except making a bald statement that the petitioner was suffering from viral fever due to heavy rains in mumbai and the doctor had advised him bed rest, the petitioner has not produced any medical certificate to that effect. the explanation offered by petitioner for condonation of delay does not inspire the confidence of the court and much credibility cannot be given to the same. delay not condoned. - in other words, possession has to be traceable to some transaction like the one defined or to a transaction akin to it.orderh. rangavittalachar, j.1. the writ petitioner who claims to be a grantee of 3 acres of land in sy. no. 12 of h. ranganathapura village, tarikere taluk has challenged the order of the deputy commissioner vide annexure-a by which order the deputy commissioner has set aside the order of the assistant commissioner, who had ordered the restoration of lands in favour of the petitioner.2. the proceedings started by a direction of the deputy commissioner in case no. lnd2.c.r. 194/96-97, dated 30-6-1998, to enquire 'whether the terms of grant made in favour of the petitioner was violated and whether petitioner was a member of the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe community'.3. the assistant commissioner after enquiry by his order dated 16-6-2000 has held that the terms of the grant has been violated and ordered resumption of the lands in favour of the writ petitioner.4. this order came to be challenged before the deputy commissioner, chickmagalur by the purchaser ramegowda and nanjundegowda by filing two separate appeals in case no. ptl.27/2000-01 and no. ptl.28/2000-01.5. the deputy commissioner clubbed both the appeals and by his common order dated 29-5-2001 has allowed the appeals.6. this order is challenged on the following grounds:(a) the deputy commissioner has not discussed the appeal filed by the i respondent, in his order. therefore there is no application of mind.7. there is no merit in the said contention. as stated, the entire order of the assistant commissioner was challenged by 2 separate appeals filed by hanumantegowda and nanjundegowda, the alleged purchasers. these 2 appeals were clubbed and after noting the common facts, the deputy commissioner has held:'the assistant commissioner was specifically directed by a previous order of the deputy commissioner on 30-6-1998 to give a specific finding whether the original grantees of land narasaiah, hanumantaiah and mariyappa were members belonging to the scheduled caste and whether there was violation of the.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

H. Rangavittalachar, J.

1. The writ petitioner who claims to be a grantee of 3 acres of land in Sy. No. 12 of H. Ranganathapura Village, Tarikere Taluk has challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A by which order the Deputy Commissioner has set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner, who had ordered the restoration of lands in favour of the petitioner.

2. The proceedings started by a direction of the Deputy Commissioner in case No. LND2.C.R. 194/96-97, dated 30-6-1998, to enquire 'whether the terms of grant made in favour of the petitioner was violated and whether petitioner was a member of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Community'.

3. The Assistant Commissioner after enquiry by his order dated 16-6-2000 has held that the terms of the grant has been violated and ordered resumption of the lands in favour of the writ petitioner.

4. This order came to be challenged before the Deputy Commissioner, Chickmagalur by the purchaser Ramegowda and Nanjundegowda by filing two separate appeals in case No. PTL.27/2000-01 and No. PTL.28/2000-01.

5. The Deputy Commissioner clubbed both the appeals and by his common order dated 29-5-2001 has allowed the appeals.

6. This order is challenged on the following grounds:

(a) the Deputy Commissioner has not discussed the appeal filed by the I respondent, in his order. Therefore there is no application of mind.

7. There is no merit in the said contention. As stated, the entire order of the Assistant Commissioner was challenged by 2 separate appeals filed by Hanumantegowda and Nanjundegowda, the alleged purchasers. These 2 appeals were clubbed and after noting the common facts, the Deputy Commissioner has held:

'The Assistant Commissioner was specifically directed by a previous order of the Deputy Commissioner on 30-6-1998 to give a specific finding whether the original grantees of land Narasaiah, Hanumantaiah and Mariyappa were members belonging to the Scheduled Caste and whether there was violation of the grant made attracting the application of the provisions made under Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1978. But the Assistant Commissioner has not given any such finding besides Assistant Commissioner has dealt the matter in a hurry without asserting the identity of the previous grantees and the very sale alleged to have been executed is fictitious, therefore, I set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner.

Thus by a reading of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, it cannot be said that the Deputy Commissioner did not deal with the Appeal No. PTL 26/2000-01, nor was there non-application of mind.

8. It was nextly submitted that the finding of the Deputy Commissioner that 'There was no transfer of granted lands' is incorrect as admittedly the I respondent and the alleged purchaser Nanjundegowda were in possession of the 'Granted Lands'. It should therefore be held that they should be in possession of the 'Granted lands', only under a 'Transfer made by grantees' in view of the presumption of law under Section 5(3) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act').

9. There is no merit in this contention also. In order to apply this presumption, two factors have to be established viz., that the lands were 'granted lands' and possession of the land was in pursuance of a 'Transfer'.

10. 'Transfer' has been defined under Section 3(e) of the Act.

'Section 3(e).--Transfer' means sale, gift, exchange, mortgage (with or without possession), lease or any other transaction not being a partition among members of a family or testamentary disposition and includes the creation of a charge or an agreement to sell, exchange, mortgage, lease or enter into any other transaction'.

11. The definition of 'Transfer' is an exclusive definition and it applies to a person in possession under any of the transaction referred to in the definition viz., sale, exchange, gift, mortgage, lease etc. In other words, 'Possession has to be traceable to some transaction like the one defined or to a transaction akin to it. But if the same is not traceable to any transaction then such a possession can be termed as the possession of a 'Trespasser' outside the definition.

12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner was unable to show the title under which the respondents were in possession. In fact the finding of the Assistant Commissioner is that the I respondent claims to be in possession under a 'Fictitious sale deed not executed by the grantee or anybody'. This finding is not disputed.

13. Hence when there was no transfer of 'Granted Lands', it is obvious that the provisions of the Act has no application to the facts of this case. Therefore, the conclusions of the Deputy Commissioner cannot be faulted.

14. It was lastly contended by the learned Counsel that the Deputy Commissioner should have remanded the matter to direct the Assistant Commissioner to give a finding that the petitioner was a member of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Community.

15. The answer is that even though the Deputy Commissioner had directed the Assistant Commissioner in his previous order to enquire whether petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Community, but a reading of the order of the Assistant Commissioner does not indicate that any materials were produced by the writ petitioner before him to establish that he belonged to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Community. Though the Assistant Commissioner has given a finding but the same is not based on any discussion or material. Under the circumstances, Deputy Commissioner has held that the finding of the Assistant Commissioner that petitioner was a member of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Community was not correct.

16. Even otherwise, when the basic ingredient for application of the provisions of Act, viz., that there was no Transfer of lands from the alleged grantee in favour of contesting respondent itself was absent no purpose would have been served by remanding the matter.

No merit.

17. Petition rejected.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2002 Same Parties Hanumanthaiah vs N. Ramegowda and ors. Same Subject Property Same Judge H. Rangavittalachar, J. Acts & Sections Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition ...

Property