AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Patil, J.—Learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1 to 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition lies in a short compass. He is aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner confirmed in appeal by the Deputy. Commissioner insofar as the finding recorded by them to the effect that the land in question was a granted land and the same was sold in favour of the 5th respondent in violation of the provisions of Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short ''the Act''). In fact, both the Authorities have concurrently held that the sale made by the original grantee -Late Hanuma Bovi was in violation of the provisions of the Act and therefore, the land in question deserved to be resumed to the Government and restored to the grantee/his legal representatives.
The original grantee having died, the proceeding before the Assistant Commissioner was instituted by the 4th respondent-Sidda Bovi asserting that he was the son and legal representative of deceased Hanuma Bovi. During the pendency of this application before the Assistant Commissioner, the present petitioners filed an application seeking their impleadment claiming that they are the real legal heirs of deceased Hanuma Bovi being his son and daughter respectively. This application was also heard along with the application filed seeking resumption and restoration of the land by the 4th respondent.
The Assistant Commissioner has while holding that the sale was illegal and the land stood resumed to the State Government ordered for restoration of the same in favour of the representatives of the deceased grantee. This order was not challenged by the 5th respondent-purchaser. However, the petitioners herein challenged it before the Deputy Commissioner contending inter alia that the Assistant Commissioner ought to have ordered for restoration of the land in their favour instead of merely saying that the land had to be restored to the legal representatives of the original grantee. The Deputy Commissioner vide his order dated 15.07.2013 has held that as there was a civil suit pending between the petitioners and the 4th respondent with regard to their right to succeed to the estate of deceased Hanuma Bovi as his legal representatives, the said question has to be decided by the Civil Court and the parties have to exhaust their remedy before the Civil Court in that regard. Thus, the Deputy Commissioner has dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
It is contended by Sri S.V. Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioners that both the Authorities ought to have recorded a specific finding as to who were the legal heirs of the deceased original grantee. It is his submission that although the petitioners had produced relevant materials, both the Authorities have failed to record such finding. He has further contended that if the land is now restored in favour of the 4th respondent, it will affect the right of the petitioners who are the real legal heirs of the deceased.
Learned Government Pleader supports the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner stating that the Authorities have not recorded any findings in that regard because both the parties are before the Civil Court and it is the Civil Court which has to ultimately decide who is the actual heir of the deceased original grantee.
Having heard the learned counsel for both parties, I do not find any apparent illegality or error of jurisdiction in the impugned orders passed by the Authorities. Admittedly, petitioners have filed O.S. No. 251/2011 seeking a declaration that they are the legal heirs of deceased Hanuma Bovi - the original grantee and for permanent injunction in respect of the property in question. It is also relevant to notice that the 4th respondent has filed another suit against the 5th respondent seeking to protect his possession claiming the relief of permanent injunction.. The question as to who is the legal heir to succeed to the estate of the deceased grantee is a matter that is seized by the Civil Court. In such circumstances, the Authorities were right and justified in not entering into that question and in holding that the matter had to be adjudicated by the Civil Court. Ultimately, it is the Civil Court which has to decide this question. Hence, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders passed by both the Authorities.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Learned Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within three weeks.