Ashok Kumar vs The State of Karnataka

B.S. Patil, J.—A writ of mandamus is sought against the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner on 29.1.2014 to withdraw the permission for alienation of the land bearing Survey No. 139 (Old Survey No. 31) measuring 2 acres, situated at Kasaba Hobli, Chintamani Taluk in Chickballapura District.

The case of petitioner is that aforementioned land was a ''granted land'' within the meaning of Karnataka SC & ST (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short ''the Act''). The land was granted in the name of mother of the petitioner on 21.10.1999 as the petitioner and his mother belonged to Scheduled Caste and as the petitioner wanted to sell the property, he applied for permission to alienate the property. Permission was granted on 31.1.2008, subject to the conditions that the land should be sold for market value and that out of the proceeds, petitioner has to purchase alternate land and that the land shall be sold within four months from the date of permission.

It is the case of the petitioner that purchaser had agreed to sell lands in Sy. No. 51/1, measuring 1 acre 12 guntas and Sy. No. 51/2 measuring 7 guntas of Ullapanahalli Village, Chintamani Taluk. It is urged that these two lands belonged to one Sowbhagyalakshmamma from whom respondents No. 3 to 6 agreed to purchase and thereafter handover the same by executing a sale deed in favour of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that as respondents 3 to 6 did not comply with the said condition agreed upon between the parties petitioner was constrained to make an application before the authorities to cancel the permission granted for alienation and to restore the land.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as this representation is not considered, petitioner has justifiably approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus.

Learned AGA for respondents 1 and 2 points out that no such condition was imposed on respondents 3 to 6 to execute any such registered sale deed. He further points out that petitioner has approached this Court in the year 2014 by filing this writ petition on 4.8.2014 to enforce the alleged agreement said to have been executed by respondents No. 3 to 6 during the year 2008.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.

The order granting permission to alienate the land is produced at Annexure ''C'' It was passed on 31.1.2008. The condition imposed therein was on the petitioner to purchase the alternate land. Subject to such condition, permission was granted. It was open for the petitioner to wait until the alternate lands were purchased in their name and only thereafter execute the sale deed, but they have chosen to execute the sale deed in favour of the purchasers-respondents No. 3 to 6 herein in the year 2008. They have kept quiet for 6 years and have now approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus to consider the petition filed by them for cancellation of the sale deed. No provision in law is brought to the notice of this Court, enabling the authority to cancel such a sale deed, which has been executed after the permission was granted.

The petitioner is guilty of latches and has to blame himself for not complying with the conditions imposed in the order, which required him to purchase the alternate land. Therefore, at such distance of time, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction, in the absence of any right vested in the petitioner to seek cancellation of the sale deed and in the absence of corresponding obligation cast on the authority to consider such a representation, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued.

Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.

Learned AGA is permitted to file his memo of appearance within three weeks from today.