LAWS(KAR)-2009-1-47

THIPPANAIKA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIMOGA DISTRICT SHIMOGA

Decided On January 15, 2009
THIPPANAIKA Appellant
V/S
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHIMOGA DISTRICT, SHIMOGA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is the case of a petitioner that the land bearing Sy. No. 48/7 an extent of 5 acres situated at Chowdanayakana Koppa in Shikaripura Taluk was granted to his father in the year 1951-52. Thereafter, the land was sold to the husband of the 3rd respondent on 1-4-1961. Proceedings have been initiated by the Assistant Commissioner and by the impugned order dated 16-12-2004 has set aside the sale and ordered for restoration of land in favour of the Government under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 Aggrieved by the same two appeals were filed before the Deputy Commissioner one by the petitioner herein and the other by the 3rd respondent. The Deputy Commissioner passed a detailed order on 24-11-2005 and the corrigendum on 26-11-2006 wherein the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent was allowed and the order of the Assistant Commissioner was set aside. These orders are under challenge by the petitioner.

(2.) SRI R. Gopal, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the authorities have committed an error while passing the impugned order. He submitted that the Deputy Commissioner has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the period of limitation of 12 years has been taken on account while accepting the case of the respondent on adverse possession. He submitted that in terms of the decision in K.T. Huchegowda v. Deputy Commissioner and Others 1996(7) Kar. L.J. 120(SC): ILR 1994 Kar. 1839 (SC): (1994)3 SCC 536 has held that the period of limitation is to be taken as 30 years and not 12 years. Hence, he submits that both the orders bad in law and liable to be dismissed.

(3.) THE prayer sought for by the petitioner is to quash the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. Since the petitioner is aggrieved by the findings of both the authorities and in view of the fact that the contesting respondent has no objection to quashing the same, I do not find it necessary to go into the merits of the contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Prayer sought for is accordingly granted. THE petitioner has no other ground to urge and is satisfied with the quashing of both the orders.