Smt. Kamalamma vs The State of Karnataka and Challakereiah since deceased by his LRs (Shantha Kumar and Krishna Murthy)

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—Writ Petitioner claims to be a person who has acquired interest to an extent of 5 acres of agricultural land in Sy No. 275 of Challakare, kasaba hobli and taluk, under sale transaction dated 27-7-1972 between the third Respondent, by his legal heirs, is before this Court in the third round of writ litigation, but the difference in the present round of writ litigation.

The present writ petition is directed against an interim order passed by the Deputy Commissioner when the appeal filed u/s 5A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [for short, the Act], at the instance of the very Petitioner is still pending before the Deputy Commissioner and on this occasion in terms of the remand order dated 9-11-2006 passed by this Court in WP No. 3679 of 2006 [second round of writ litigation]. The first round was through WP No. 36894 of 2001 and in both the earlier rounds Petitioner successfully questioned the legality of the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, invalidating the sale transaction and directing restoration of the land in favour of grantee or his legal heir.

Submission of Sri K. Rama Bhat, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, is that when the matter is remanded to Deputy Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner, though is not sufficient tile to hear and dispose of the main appeal, has nevertheless passed the interim order affecting the interest of the Petitioner and that too without proper notice to the Petitioner, as per his stay order dated 22-11-2010 [copy at Annexure-A to the writ petition].

Submission is that the Petitioner is in possession and cultivation of the subject land and an order of this nature could not have been granted and that too without opportunity to the Petitioner and the Deputy Commissioner having not found time to pass final orders, could not have resorted to this short cut method of granting interim order in favour of third Respondent etc.

Notice had been issued to the Respondents. First and the second Respondents are represented by Sri R. Omkumar, learned AGA and third Respondent is represented by Sri Chetan, advocate.

While learned AGA points out that the Deputy Commissioner has rightly passed the order, as it had been brought to his notice that the Petitioner was taking some preemptive action in respect of the subject land, submission of learned Counsel for third Respondent, is that there is no residential unit in the property as of now, but as the Petitioner is constructing an unauthorized structure and is also drawing power illegally from the overhead power line, it became necessary for the third Respondent to bring the notice of the Deputy Commissioner such developments and seek for suitable relief and therefore no interference is warranted.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, on the other hand, asserts that the order is virtually in the nature of an injunction order and when the Petitioner is living there, there is no question of restraining the Petitioner from even entering the subject land etc.

It will not be possible for this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India to resolve such disputed facts. It is also not necessary for this Court to interfere with even an interim order passed by the Deputy Commissioner during the pendency of the appeal u/s 5A of the Act.

In the circumstance, the only mode of disposal of this writ petition can be to direct the Deputy Commissioner to hear and dispose of the main appeal itself within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, liberty reserved in favour of Petitioner to move for modification of the order before the Deputy Commissioner itself, if a situation so warranted and if the matter is not disposed of expeditiously.

Except for the above observation, these writ petitions are dismissed.