Writ Appeal No. 199 of 2023 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17749-DB WA No. 199 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 199 OF 2023 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: SRI. M. M. MAHADEV, S/O LATE MADAIAH L.M., AGED 83 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.176, 5TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, SRINIVASANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 050.
Legal Reasoning
3. We agree with the said conclusion arrived at by the learned single judge. It was not the liberty which has been granted to the appellant to reagitate the issue before this Court. It was only, the question of law which arose for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was left open by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, otherwise the SLP filed by the appellant being Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.19331/2010 was dismissed as can be seen from the order reproduced in paragraph No.3 at page 23 of the writ appeal which we reproduce as under: 3. The Division Bench has heard a learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner as also the learned Counsel for the respondents, and by order dated 15.04.2010 has again dismissed the writ appeal on merits. The petitioner has challenged this order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.19331/2010. The Supreme Court has dismissed the petition, but has left open the question of law raised by the petitioner. The Supreme Court’s order dated 26.07.2010 in the aforesaid Special Leave Petition reads as under : “The special leave petition is dismissed. However, the question of law sought to be raised in the present petition is left open.” - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17749-DB WA No. 199 of 2023 4. The Special leave petition was dismissed. However the question of law sought to be raised in the SLP was left open. If that being the order, lis, inter-se parties has attained finality. The appellant could not have reagitated the issue by filing a fresh petition before the learned single judge. We do not see any merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.
Arguments
(BY SRI. SANKET M. YENAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: …APPELLANT Digitally signed by PRAJWAL A Location: High Court of Karnataka 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, 5TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE - 560 001. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE - 560 001. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17749-DB WA No. 199 of 2023 4. SMT. NANJAMMA W/O LATE CHINNAPPA MAJOR 5. SMT. PADMAMMA W/O GOVINDAPPA, MAJOR, 6. SRI. VENKATASWAMY S/O. LATE CHINNAPPA, MAJOR RESPONDENTS NO. 4 TO 6 ARE R/AT MARIAPPANAPALY, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK - 560 060. 7. SRI. VENKATASWAMY, S/O LATE JUTTA BOGI, MAJOR 8. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY, S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, MAJOR RESPONDENTS NO. 7 AND 8 ARE R/AT NAGADEVANAHALLI,, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK - 560 060. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R1-R3; R4, R6 AND R8 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S. 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.07.2022 PASSED IN WP No-892/2017(SC/ST) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17749-DB WA No. 199 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) This intra-court appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order of the learned single judge dated 05.07.2022 in W.P.No.892/2017 whereby the learned single judge has dismissed the petition by stating in paragraph No.5 of the order as under: 5. This Court is not persuaded to opine that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reserved liberty to the petitioner to reagitate the very same issues as are decided by the Division Bench. The Division Bench in its order dated 15.04.2010 has considered even the merits of the submission against the sale after a period of ten years from the grant would not be hit by the provisions of the PTCL Act. If the first sale is void, the subsequent sale would also be void. The Division Bench’s order in this regard reads as under: at Mallathhalli "9. The facts stated earlier that 2 acres of land in Sy. No. 42, Block No.47 village, situated Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk was granted in favour of Jutta Bhovi on 10.02.1953 and saguvali Chit was issued on 01.05.1953 are not disputed. Though the non-alienation period was - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17749-DB WA No. 199 of 2023 mentioned as 10 years in the Saguvali Chit, to be noted that as per Rule 43(8) of the Land Grant Rule existing in the year 1953, the non alienation period is for 20 years. In view of Rule 43(8) of the Land Grant Rules, Rules always prevail over any such entry made in the Certificate of Grant. Hence, it is clear that the land granted to Jutta Bhovi cannot be alienated for a period of 20 years. It is not in dispute that 2 acres of the State Government of Jutta Bhovi who belongs to a weaker Section of the Society which is the reason for imposing the condition that the land shall not be alienated for a period of 20 years." land was granted by 2. Suffice to state that the father of the appellant had purchased the land measuring 2 acres in Sy.No.42, Block No.47 of Mallathahalli Village, Yeshwanthapur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The proceedings were initiated and the orders dated 29.08.1997 and 01.07.2002 were passed. The appellant herein challenged the orders before the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition No.12622/2003. The said writ petition was dismissed on 27.05.2003. The writ appeal filed against the said order in W.A.No.5640/2003 was dismissed without condoning the delay after brief reference to the circumstances leading to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17749-DB WA No. 199 of 2023 filing of the appeal. The appellant had carried the order of the Division Bench before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.8602/2004. The said SLP was allowed in favour of the appellant whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has condoned the delay and remitted the writ appeal for reconsideration. On reconsideration the Division Bench vide order dated 15.04.2010 again dismissed the writ appeal. The order dated 15.04.2010 became the subject matter of a further Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.19331/2010. The Supreme Court dismissed the said petition and left open the question of law raised by the appellant herein. The case of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that in view of the liberty granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appellant has rightly challenged the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Special Deputy Commissioner. The said plea was rejected by the learned single judge in paragraph 5 of the impugned order which we have already reproduced above. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17749-DB WA No. 199 of 2023
Decision
Pending applications, if any, are disposed of. Sd/- (V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE NS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12