C.D. Appaiah vs State of Karnataka

B.S. Patil, J.—Petitioners are calling in question the endorsement dated 05.09.2013 vide Annexure-G issued by the 3rd respondent -Deputy Commissioner and the order sheet maintained in the office of the 3rd respondent vide Annexure-F.

Petitioners claim to be the legal representatives of late Smt. Muthamma. Smt. Muttamma purchased land bearing Sy. No. 37/B to an extent of 14 guntas situated at Koppalur Village of Mysore Taluk under a registered sale deed dated 27.10.1994. They claim to be in possession and enjoyment of the said land.

Proceedings were initiated by the Assistant Commissioner, Mysore Sub-division, Mysore, based on the instruction said to have been given by the Deputy Commissioner for resumption of the land under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short the Act''). The Assistant Commissioner passed an order dated 07.11.1998 ordering resumption of the land to the Government and directing necessary entries to be made in the revenue records in this regard showing the name of the Government, on the ground that the sale was executed in violation of the provisions of the Act.

According to the petitioners, they were neither heard nor notified in the matter by the Assistant Commissioner and the said order was passed placing them ex-parte. It is urged that having come to know of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, an appeal was preferred under Section 5-A of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner in appeal No. PTAL(Appel)17/2002-03 along with an application seeking condonation of delay.

The Deputy Commissioner has not considered the said appeal. This is evident from Annexure-G endorsement issued by the Deputy Commissioner on 05.09.2013 wherein it is stated that appeals filed by petitioners and ten others had not been considered.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is the duty of the Assistant Commissioner to verify the original records by conducting due enquiry providing an opportunity to the petitioners and to return his findings first regarding the important question as to whether it is a granted land, secondly as regards the status of the grantee, thirdly whether he belongs to scheduled caste and lastly as to whether the alienation has been made in violation of the provisions contained under Section 4 of the Act. It is urged that none of these things are done by the Assistant Commissioner. According to the petitioners, original records were not available and in the absence of the records, the Assistant Commissioner had come to the conclusion that the land deserved to be resumed to the Government.

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that by explaining the delay, a statutory appeal was filed before the Deputy Commissioner. But, the Deputy Commissioner has issued an endorsement stating that the appeal has not been considered. Thus, he urges that valuable rights of the petitioners over the immoveable property have been subjected to jeopardy by the Deputy Commissioner without considering the appeal presented before him.

Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the appeal presented will be heard in accordance with law and an appropriate order will be passed by the Deputy Commissioner.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances adverted to above, as the Deputy Commissioner has not passed any order on the appeal presented before him under Section 5-Aof the Act, it is just and appropriate to direct the Deputy Commissioner to pass an order after hearing the petitioner. Petitioner and other interested persons shall be notified by the Deputy Commissioner and an order on the appeal including on the application filed for condonation of delay shall be passed expeditiously by considering all contentions raised.