Sri Srinivas and Sri Neelkant vs The State of Karnataka, Department of Revenue and Others

B.S. Patil, J.—Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondents 1 to 3.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate.

Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 19.04.2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Shimoga Sub-Division, Shimoga, affirmed in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga District, Shimoga vide his order dated 27.01.2014, thereby dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking resumption and restoration of an extent of 2 acres of land comprised in Sy. No. 36/3 situated at Komaranahalli Village in Bhadravathi Taluk.

Both the Authorities have found that petitioner was not entitled to maintain the application in view of the fact that father of the petitioner had earlier filed similar application seeking resumption and restoration of the land and on enquiry the Assistant Commissioner vide his order dated 05.10.1985 had passed an order in No. RRC.KB.89/1978-79 rejecting the same, holding that alienation made was not hit by the provisions of Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. He found that the alienation had been made beyond the period of non-alienation prescribed. This order having attained finality, petitioner was held not entitled to re-open the case and file one more application seeking resumption and restoration of the very land.

This question is no longer res integra as this Court in W.A. No. 2142/1992 has held that in such circumstances, appellant cannot be permitted to raise the contention that a fresh application can be filed and fresh proceedings can be instituted at the instance of persons claiming under the original grantee. In fact, following this order passed in W.A. No. 2142/1992, I have held in W.P. No. 50517/2013 disposed of on 18.12.2013 that in such circumstances, writ petitioner cannot be permitted to re-open the controversy which has attained finality.

It is not the case of the petitioner that the order earlier passed by the Assistant Commissioner was rendered void due to any legal infirmity nor is the said order challenged by the petitioner within any reasonable time. Petitioner, therefore, claiming rights under the original grantee who has suffered such an order from the Assistant Commissioner which has attained finality, cannot reopen the matter. If such recourse is permitted, then, it will amount to unsettling the settled things. It will lead to greater injustice.

Conduct of the petitioner in suppressing this material fact while moving the Assistant Commissioner seeking resumption and restoration is also a relevant factor to be noticed here. Indeed, it is the respondent who has brought the same to the notice of the Assistant Commissioner, whereupon the Assistant Commissioner has examined the matter and has recorded a finding that there was an earlier order passed as back as in the year 1985 rejecting the claim made by the father of the petitioner seeking resumption and restoration.

Therefore, both the Authorities have rightly held that fresh claim made by the son of the grantee - petitioner herein was not maintainable. There is no apparent illegality or error of jurisdiction committed by the Authorities below.

Hence, the writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.