Devendrappa Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Devendrappa vs State of Karnataka and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Jul 30, 2009

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/385387

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/385387
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: A.S. Bopanna, J.
Decided On: Jul 30, 2009
Case Number: Writ Petition Nos. 3900 and 15587 to 15589 of 2009
Subject: Property

Case Summary

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

- Section 25: [Ajit J. Gunjal, J] Auction sale of properties - Petitioner was the successful auction purchaser in the auction conducted by Debt Recovery Tribunal - Recovery Officer failed to deliver possession of auctioned property Held, Apparently, an interim application was filed before the Debt Recovery Tribun...

Key legal issue: Property
Acts & sections: Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Sections 94A and 94B

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Devendrappa

Advocate U. Panduranga Nayak, Adv.

Respondent

State of Karnataka and ors.

Advocate P. Kumar, High Court Government Pleader for Respondents-1 to 3

Legal References

Acts: Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Sections 94A and 94B
Reported In: 2009(5)KarLJ543

Excerpt

- section 25: [ajit j. gunjal, j] auction sale of properties - petitioner was the successful auction purchaser in the auction conducted by debt recovery tribunal - recovery officer failed to deliver possession of auctioned property held, apparently, an interim application was filed before the debt recovery tribunal and the debt recovery tribunal was of the view that the recovery officer 2 will not be in a position to do justice to the party. hence, he has withdrawn the matter from recovery officer 2 and has entrusted the same to recovery officer 1. in the given set of circumstances, if recovery officer 2 is not in a position to do justice and recovery officer 1 is not available, she having been repatriated, it was incumbent upon the presiding officer himself to deal with the matter. an auction purchaser who has deposited a substantial sum cannot be made to run from pillar to post for possession of the property. section 31: [s.b. sinha & asok kumar ganguly,jj] transfer of pending cases held, it is limited only to pending suits and proceedings for recovery of debts to financial institutions. no transfer de hors sections 31 is permissible. transfer of suit filed by debtor industry seeking declaration that foreign exchange derivative contract entered with bank was void is not permissible......in the background of the contentions, i have also perused the reasons put forth in the letter dated 7-2-2009 wherein the principal secretary to the government has stated with regard to the steps which has been initiated towards constitution of the regularisation committee. the delay in not constituting the committee is also explained in the letter and ultimately has undertaken that the committee would be constituted after the amendment to section 94b is given effect to and thereafter the orders constituting the said committee under section 94a will be issued by the government.5. considering that the government has taken some proactive steps in constituting the committee, i am of the view that the present petitions could be disposed of only with a direction to the respondents to constitute the regularisation committee as expeditiously as possible keeping in view the hardship being faced by the petitioners and other similarly placed persons.6. the learned government advocate is also requested to address the principal secretary along with a copy of this order indicating to the principal secretary about the view expressed by this court that the same shall not be kept pending for a long time and all steps shall be taken as expeditiously as possible. until the respondents consider and dispose of the applications in accordance with law, after constitution of the committee the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the lands. further, it is directed that after the constitution of the committee the case of the petitioners shall be considered and disposed within a period of five months from the date of constitution of the committee.7. in terms of the above, all these writ petitions stand disposed of. no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

ORDER

A.S. Bopanna, J.

1. Learned Government Advocate is directed to accept notice for respondent 3 and also to appear for respondents 1 and 2 who are served and unrepresented. Memo of appearance to be filed within a period of four weeks.

2. In all these petitions the grievance of the petitioners is that the application filed by the petitioners seeking regularisation of their unauthorised occupation and cultivation of the lands, in the lands as detailed in the respective writ petition has not yet been considered and disposed of by the Land Grant Committee in accordance with law. In this regard, the petitioners have also placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 468 of 2008 disposed of on 18-1-2008, wherein this Court had directed the consideration of the application after the Constitution of the Regularisation Committee. The petitioners contend that subsequent to the said order they have approached the respondents on several occasions and the endorsement being issued is only to the effect that the application would be considered after the Constitution of the Committee. As such the petitioners contend that an appropriate direction requires to be issues to constitute the Committee.

3. The learned Government Advocate states that in view of the direction by this Court in the earlier round of the writ petition, the respondents still bind themselves to consider and dispose of the applications filed by the petitioners in accordance with law after the Committee is constituted. The learned Government Advocate also placed a letter said to have been addressed by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department indicating the steps taken in this regard.

4. In the background of the contentions, I have also perused the reasons put forth in the letter dated 7-2-2009 wherein the Principal Secretary to the Government has stated with regard to the steps which has been initiated towards Constitution of the Regularisation Committee. The delay in not constituting the Committee is also explained in the letter and ultimately has undertaken that the Committee would be constituted after the amendment to Section 94B is given effect to and thereafter the orders constituting the said Committee under Section 94A will be issued by the Government.

5. Considering that the Government has taken some proactive steps in constituting the Committee, I am of the view that the present petitions could be disposed of only with a direction to the respondents to constitute the Regularisation Committee as expeditiously as possible keeping in view the hardship being faced by the petitioners and other similarly placed persons.

6. The learned Government Advocate is also requested to address the Principal Secretary along with a copy of this order indicating to the Principal Secretary about the view expressed by this Court that the same shall not be kept pending for a long time and all steps shall be taken as expeditiously as possible. Until the respondents consider and dispose of the applications in accordance with law, after Constitution of the Committee the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the lands. Further, it is directed that after the Constitution of the Committee the case of the petitioners shall be considered and disposed within a period of five months from the date of Constitution of the Committee.

7. In terms of the above, all these writ petitions stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2009 Same Parties Devendrappa vs State of Karnataka and ors. Same Subject Property Same Judge A.S. Bopanna, J. Acts & Sections Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Sections 94A and 94B

Property