Hon’ble Mr. Justice R Devdas celebrates his 57th birthday today.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice R Devdas: Born on 15th May 1969. Studied in Sri Ramakrishna Vidyashala, Mysore. Pre-University Education and Bachelor of Arts at St.Joseph’s Arts and Science College, Bangalore and Bachelor of Law at Sri Jagadguru Renukacharya College of Law, Bangalore.
Started practice in the year 1994 in the office of M/s. Jayaram & Jayaram, Advocates, Bangalore.
Appointed as Addl. Government Advocate for State of Karnataka on 6th June 2008.
Appointed as Principal Government Advocate on 10th July 2014.
Appointed as an Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka on 14th February 2018.
Appointed as Permanent Judge of the High Court of Karnataka on 7th January 2020.
Important Judgments delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Devdas
Service Law. Person who questions a Government order in Court and accepts another Government order without demure loses right to challenge the first order. Karnataka High Court.
Person taking advantage of a provision of law cannot raise challenge to it.
Income Tax Act. Section 147. Mere change of opinion on consideration of the same material is not a ground to reopen the assessment. Full Bench Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka SC-ST PTCL Act. Application for resumption of land after sale with prior permission NOT maintainable. Alternative appeal remedy not a bar for Writ Petition against illegal order of Assistant Commissioner. Karnataka High Court.
Will. Principles governing proof of Will and mode of proving Will explained. Karnataka High Court.
Hindu Law. Separated son has NO right in ancestral property left by kartha. He can claim share as Class-I heir after death of Kartha in notional partition. Karnataka High Court.
CLARIFICATION – Second wife, married during life time of first wife, getting share in the property of deceased husband. Karnataka High Court Judgment.
Unlike access to justice, forum convenience is not a fundamental right. Only the Chief Justice of High Court has power to allocate work to puisne judges of respective benches of High Court. Karnataka High Court clarifies.
Air India Limited is not a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India after disinvestment and hence Writ against it is not maintainable. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka High Court condones the delay of 20 years in seeking resumption of granted and later tenanted lands under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978.
When sole plaintiff dies and application is filed by persons claiming to be legal representatives, it is the duty of the Court to consider whether the right to sue survives. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/BTnGA03wYX2oD6qRmngdeBORw
Plaint in a suit for a primary relief of partition and separate possession cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation though the secondary prayer is barred by time especially when both the prayers are interconnected. Karnataka High Court.
Occupancy rights cannot be claimed or granted under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act in respect of garden land (bagayat land). Karnataka High Court reiterates.
Conversion of granted land for non-agricultural purposes and construction of residential building in industrial zone cannot be a ground to cancel the grant. Karnataka High Court.
Purchasers of inam lands after vesting of the lands in the State cannot claim occupancy rights under Section 9 of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1958. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka SC-ST PTCL Act. Conversion of land for non-agricultural purposes will operate as prior permission to sell only if the land is converted by the original grantee and not by the purchaser. Karnataka High Court.
Creation/claim of tenancy under the KLR Act in respect of granted lands also amounts to ‘transfer’ under the SC/ST (PTCL) Act, 1978 and hence the same is void though the Tribunal order has become final. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka SC-ST PTCL Act, 1978. Application for prior permission to alienate granted land filed by power of attorney of the grantee can NOT be considered. Only grantee or his legal heirs can apply for prior permission. Karnataka High Court.
“Purpose of acquisition is relevant factor in determining the compensation’’. Karnataka High Court enhances compensation from Rs. 750/- to Rs. 2000/- for the land acquired for Court complex.
Service law. In the absence of clear proof based on the evidence of witnesses in the enquiry, an adverse presumption cannot be drawn on the guilt of the accused. Karnataka High Court sets aside compulsory retirement on corruption charges.
Detention order cannot be challenged by seeking a writ of habeas corpus when the order is already confirmed by the Government. Karnataka High Court.
Standalone distilleries established for manufacturing ethanol are not governed by the provisions of the Sugarcane Control Order, 1966. Karnataka High Court.
Planning Authority cannot seek relinquishment of Buffer Zone or the building line where construction cannot take place, free of cost, to the Planning Authority while sanctioning the development plan. Karnataka High Court.
Reference Court while awarding compensation in respect of the sub-soil/minerals underneath the soil of the acquired properties shall take into consideration the provisions of the Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession Rules. Karnataka High Court.
Freedom fighters’ pension. The proof required must be as provided in the pension scheme itself. As long as such proof was not available, the benefit cannot be granted. Karnataka High Court, while following the Supreme Court Judgment.
There is no requirement of producing original title deeds for transfer of khata under the BBMP Act. Karnataka High Court.
Appointment of arbitrator. Question of limitation can be gone into only in the very limited category of cases where there is not even a vestige of doubt that the claim is ex facie time barred. Karnataka High Court.
Grant of lands under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. There is no restriction that the land shall not be granted to more than one member of the same family. Karnataka High Court.
Inamdar or his successors have no right to alienate lands already vested under the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954. Subsequent purchasers cannot seek grant of occupancy rights. Karnataka High Court.
Order of cancellation of land grant which is not communicated to the grantees cannot be construed as an order in the eye of law. Karnataka High Court.
Writ Court can give directions to compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner and itself can pass orders which the Government or the public authority should have passed had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion. Karnataka High Court.
Second Writ Petition for mandamus is maintainable when the earlier direction was not complied. Writ Court can give directions to compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner. Karnataka High Court.
Conducting land survey and marking boundaries under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act cannot be resorted to claim title over the property instead of approaching the civil Court. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Land Revenue Act. There is no restriction for grant of land to more than one member of the same family under Section 94-A. Karnataka High Court.
Tahsildar cannot order removal of name from the land records unilaterally asserting the land to be government land and without following the procedure under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Karnataka High Court.
Assistant Commissioner has no power to initiate suo motu proceedings under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act in respect of the entries made in the land records. Karnataka High Court.
Land grants obtained allegedly by playing fraud can be cancelled only by initiating appropriate proceedings within reasonable time. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act. Gift of granted land by grantee in favour of his/her son/daughter without prior permission also attracts the provisions of the Act. Karnataka High Court.
Violation of Sections 79A & 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act cannot be alleged in respect of sale of agricultural properties which took place prior to 1 March 1974. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act. Plea of Adverse possession by the purchaser of granted land can be taken only if there is uninterrupted and continuous possession without animus to constitute hostile rights and possession. Karnataka High Court.
The advantage of omission of Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act is available even to pending review petition before the Appellate Tribunal. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Period of non-alienation for tenanted lands commences from the final order of the Land Tribunal and not from the date of issuance of Form-10. Karnataka High Court.
When tenancy is governed under the Karnataka Rent Act, Civil Court has no jurisdiction to pass a decree for possession of the tenanted property. Karnataka High Court.
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act. Even after exemption granted under the Act, Deputy Commissioner has the authority to proceed if owners of land violate the order of exemption passed by the State Government. Karnataka High Court.
Entry in revenue records based on a Will. Karnataka High Court explains the procedure to be adopted.
Undervaluation of transaction. Deputy Commissioner must, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, shall hold an enquiry to assess proper market value before levying the duty. Karnataka High Court.
Application for amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial can be permitted only if the applicant demonstrates that, notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, the application could not have been filed at an earlier stage. Karnataka High Court.
Election to cooperative society. If rejection of nomination paper is per se illegal, Writ Court can entertain the petition under Article 226 without relegating the parties to the election petition. Karnataka High Court.
Where a person is a party to the document and seeks relief regarding the said document, he must pay court fee on the value of the subject-matter. Clever drafting cannot be used to avoid court fee. Karnataka High Court.
A person who has taken advantage or benefit of a provision of law, can not be permitted to raise a challenge to the very same provision under which the benefit was taken. Karnataka High Court.
Planning Authority has no power to impose penalty for delayed development of the layout project, beyond the time granted for completion of the project, in the absence of legislative sanction. Karnataka High Court.
Constitution of India. In the absence of legislative sanction, the State Government, in exercise of its executive powers under Article 162, cannot levy and collect penalty, merely by issuing a notification. Karnataka High Court.
Family Courts Act. Suit for declaration regarding marital status between two ladies claiming to be the legally wedded wife of a certain person falls within the jurisdiction of the family court and not the civil court. Karnataka High Court.
Usage of a portion of residential building for non-residential activities cannot be a reason to cancel allotment of house site especially when the site falls within municipal corporation area. Karnataka High Court.
When the scheme formulated under the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act to form residential layout is lapsed, the Authority cannot refuse sanction of residential layout plan submitted by the landowners. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act. Though regrant of land enures to the benefit of the purchaser, notice to the original grantee is mandatory before regularising the alienation. Karnataka High Court.
Rejection of Plaint. Adjudication of the plea of resjudicata requires consideration of the pleadings, issues and decisions in the previous suit. Plaint cannot be rejected under such circumstances. Karnataka High Court.
A compromise decree in an ejectment suit, where the tenant agrees to vacate upon breach of conditions, is directly executable without requiring a fresh suit. Once a compromise is recorded by the court, it becomes enforceable as a decree. Karnataka High Court.
Acquisition by BDA. When adjacent lands are not acquired or deleted from the acquisition, small islands of acquired land cannot be used as a standalone park or playground in regard to a layout formed in a different unconnected lands. Karnataka High Court.
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act. Gift deed involving a senior citizen cannot be cancelled unless it contains a specific covenant that the transferee will provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to the donor. Karnataka High Court.
Planning authority cannot reject an application for a development plan on the sole premise of a mere proposal for future development or acquisition, unless a formal notification for acquisition has been issued. Karnataka High Court.
Hindu Succession Act. A suit for partition by a deceased Hindu male’s sister’s daughters is liable for rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC, as, in the absence of Class I heirs, the deceased’s brothers inherit the property to the exclusion of the sister’s daughters. Karnataka High Court.
Cause of action would mean and include the very right to sue. If the plaint does not disclose the right to sue, it must be rejected in order to weed out unnecessary, frivolous litigation, and save precious judicial time for deserving cases. Karnataka High Court.
A daughter-in-law cannot be compelled to pay maintenance to her mother-in-law under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Proceedings under Sections 79A and 79B cannot be initiated in respect of the transactions occurred prior to the enactment of the sections. Karnataka High Court.
A plaint can be rejected at the threshold if, upon a meaningful reading, it is clear that the suit is barred by limitation, even when the question of limitation is generally considered a mixed question of law and fact. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Tahsildar cannot refuse to enter the purchaser’s name in the revenue records on the ground that the sale violates the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act. Unless and until the competent authority declares the sale void and sets it aside, the Tahsildar has no authority to deny such mutation. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Land Grant Rules. State cannot pass an order regarding payment for standing trees on granted land without first obtaining a formal valuation from the competent authority. Any administrative order issued without such a technical valuation report is procedurally flawed and liable to be quashed. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Deputy Commissioner cannot reject an application for conversion of land on the ground that the land transaction violates the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act. Though the Deputy Commissioner can initiate ‘suo-motu’ proceedings through the Assistant Commissioner to investigate PTCL violations, he must consider the conversion application independently. Karnataka High Court.
Rejection of plaint. A suit for partition, filed several years after the original transaction solely to harass a subsequent purchaser, amounts to bogus litigation and must be nipped in the bud, even if clever drafting creates an illusion of cause of action to overcome the law of limitation. Karnataka High Court.
Res Judicata. A subsequent suit for partition and separate possession is barred if a previous suit seeking the identical relief between the same parties or their predecessors-in-interest has already been dismissed by a competent Court. The fact that the earlier suit was dismissed without recording evidence or a detailed adjudication on merits does not prevent the bar of res judicata from operating. Karnataka High Court.
Authorities under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the Karnataka Sakala Services Act must process mutation and revenue entry applications within the prescribed timelines. Unexplained delay in updating records based on a registered sale deed amounts to a breach of public duty. Karnataka High Court imposes personal costs on the erring official.
Civil Procedure Code. Section 24. A transfer application falls within the ambit of ‘other proceedings,’ and an order passed on such an application constitutes a ‘case decided,’ as it finally disposes of the matter before the District Judge. Consequently, a Civil Revision Petition is maintainable against such an order. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Mere proposal for acquisition of land by Government cannot be a ground to reject conversion of the land. Karnataka High Court.
Irrevocable General Power of Attorney along with an Agreement of Sale and affidavit executed by the lease-cum-sale allottee prior to the judgment in Suraj Lamps can be relied on for the purpose of executing sale deed by the Development Authority in favour of the GPA holder. Karnataka High Court.
Land acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed when the acquired land remains an undeveloped ‘island’ surrounded by private developments, making the formation of a self-contained layout impossible, and such challenges are not barred by prior dismissals or delay, as the non-implementation of the scheme provides a fresh cause of action. Karnataka High Court.
Municipal authority cannot adjudicate on the validity of registered gift deeds or civil court judgments while considering a khata transfer application. If there are existing khatas registered in other individuals’ names, those parties must be given an opportunity to be heard before any orders affecting their rights are passed. Karnataka High Court.
A plaint is liable to be rejected if the suit seeks to re-adjudicate issues that have already been conclusively decided in prior litigation between the same parties or their privies. A probate, when granted by a competent court, is conclusive as to the validity and due execution of the Will, and a subsequent suit challenging the same on grounds already litigated is not maintainable. Karnataka High Court.
The buffer zone requirement under the Revised Master Plan 2015 does not apply to layouts approved before its finalisation. Where a layout was sanctioned prior to RMP-2015, authorities cannot refuse a building plan solely on the ground of buffer zone compliance. Karnataka High Court.
Under the amended Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, revenue authorities are bound to entertain applications seeking cancellation of land forfeiture, even when the forfeiture is followed by sale of the property for recovery of government dues. Upon repayment of the arrears, the authorities must delete ‘Sarkari Pada’ entry from the revenue records. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Deputy Commissioner’s authority under Section 136 (3) is limited to correcting revenue entries and does not extend to annulling previous land grants, determining the validity of transactions, or ordering the resumption of land. The suo motu power cannot be exercised decades after the original grant, especially when third-party interests have been established. Karnataka High Court.
The eligibility of land for regularization of unauthorized occupation, in relation to the prescribed prohibited distance from a local authority’s boundary, must be determined with reference to the geographical boundary and legal status as they existed on the date of filing the original application, and not as on the date of its consideration. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Land Grant Rules Grantee of land must be afforded an opportunity to pay the assessed value of the standing trees within the time prescribed by the granting authority. Any cancellation of the grant without adhering to this procedure is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Land Revenue Act. A revenue grant of land in a manner known to law cannot be unilaterally nullified or deleted from the Record of Rights by the Tahsildar on the mere claim that the land is a ‘Sarkari Gunduthopu,’ as ‘gunduthopu’ land is not statutorily prohibited from being granted. Karnataka High Court.
Section 148 CPC. Civil Court’s power to extend time for payment of deficit court fee is limited to a maximum of thirty days. If the plaintiff fails to pay within this period, the suit remains still-born and cannot be registered. Acceptance of deficit court fee after undue delay, without a timely extension application, is without jurisdiction and defeats the mandatory intent of the Court Fees Act. Karnataka High Court.
A land owner’s right to seek conversion of land from agricultural to non-agricultural use cannot be denied by the Deputy Commissioner solely on the ground that there is a proposal or a preliminary notification for future land acquisition by the State. Until the land is formally vested in the State through a final award and possession, the owner retains the right to put the land to better use, and authorities are obligated to process conversion application. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Land Reforms Act. When the lands stand in the name of a private individual as the kathedar, the Deputy Commissioner cannot record the same as ‘unrecorded habitations’ under Section 38A. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Land Grant Rules. The gainful employment of the applicant’s family members is not a disqualification for the grant of land. Cancellation of the grant after a prolonged lapse of time is illegal. Karnataka High Court.
The Revenue authorities cannot initiate proceedings to cancel land grants or delete entries from the Record of Rights after an inordinate and unexplained delay. Failure of the State to maintain its own records cannot be used as a ground to penalize bona fide holders of the land. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act. Agreement of sale, without any condition that the transaction would be proceeded after obtaining prior permission from the Government, amounts to ‘transfer’ and hence void. Consequently, suit for specific performance of such an agreement is not maintainable. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupiers) Act. When a dispute of title is raised against a show-cause notice issued under the Act, the Estate Officer does not have the jurisdiction to decide such disputed questions of title; such disputes can only be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Land Revenue Rules. In proceedings for the regularization of unauthorized cultivation of government land under Chapter XIII-A, an application cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the remaining land would be insufficient for free pasturage since the statutory proviso to the Rules explicitly exempts regularization cases from the requirement of maintaining a minimum pasturage limit and from the necessity of obtaining prior permission from the Deputy Commissioner for such reduction. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Rules. Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to reject an application for regularization of unauthorized occupation of government land without placing such applications before the ‘Committee for Regularisation of Unauthorised Occupation’ for its consideration. Karnataka High Court.
Daksha Legal 