B.K. MUNIRAJU versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

B.K. MUNIRAJU versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

The land in question was purchased by Motappa in a public auction for a price and not granted free or at upset price as provided under Rule 43(8) of Mysore Land Revenue Rules; therefore, it was not 'granted land' attracting Section 4(1) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, and the findings of the authorities below cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227.

Parties
Appellant: B.K. Muniraju; Respondents: State of Karnataka and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court's Dismissal of Writ Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Article 226 Jurisdiction, Article 227 Jurisdiction, Writ of Certiorari, Grant of Land, Interpretation of Documents, Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978
Constitutional Law Property Law Administrative Law Article 226 Jurisdiction Article 227 Jurisdiction Writ of Certiorari Grant of Land Interpretation of Documents +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B.K. Muniraju

Appellant

State of Karnataka and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court's Dismissal of Writ Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the land in question is a 'granted land' under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978
  2. 2 Whether the writ of certiorari under Article 226/227 can be issued to quash factual findings of authorities below regarding nature of land

Ratio Decidendi

The land in question was purchased by Motappa in a public auction for a price and not granted free or at upset price as provided under Rule 43(8) of Mysore Land Revenue Rules; therefore, it was not 'granted land' attracting Section 4(1) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, and the findings of the authorities below cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs