Karnataka High Court
Smt. Sarojamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 September, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION No.56621/2014 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SAROJAMMA
W/O. MOHAN
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDENT OF KUNDUR VILLAGE,
HONNALI TALUK - 577 219
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.D.P.MAHESH, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M.S.BUILDING, 5TH FLOOR,
BANGALORE-560 002
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 002
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISION,
DAVANAGERE.
4. THE TAHASILDAR
HONNALI,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
2
5. HANUMAPPA @ HANUMANTHAPPA
S/O. KENCHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
REP. BY HIS GPA HOLDER,
THIPPANNA, S/O. KENCHAPPA
RESIDENT OF HADADI VILLAGE,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.N.ANITHA, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-4;
SRI.V.F.KUMBAR, ADV. FOR R-5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.9.2014 PASSED BY THE R-2
VIDE ANN-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner claims that the land bearing Sy.No.55/3 measuring 2 acres 10 guntas and Sy.Nos.42/1 & 42/2 measuring 3 acres both situated at Thimmenahalli, Honnali Taluk, was granted in favour of one Hanumappa @ Hanumanthappa vide Grant Orders dated 14.11.1956 and 03.09.1957.
2. The fifth respondent claiming to be the legal representative of original grantee, filed an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes 3 And Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition Of Transfer Of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'PTCL Act') alleging that the said lands conveyed in favour of the petitioner was in contravention of Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the application and resumed/restored the subject land in favour of the fifth respondent, against which the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 5 of the PTCL Act before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner concerned dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner restoring the subject land in favour of the fifth respondent, against which present petition is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the purchaser of the land bearing Sy.No.42/1 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas and Sy.No.42/2 both corresponding Sy.Nos.90 and 91 through a registered sale deed dated 13.04.1988 executed by Smt.Gowramma and Sri.Hanumanthappa. 4 Hence, he submits that the petitioner has not purchased the land granted in favour of Hanumanthappa and as such the provisions of PTCL Act are not applicable.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the fifth respondent submits that the subject lands are 'granted lands' as defined under Section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act and the Assistant Commissioner has rightly restored the subject lands in favour of the fifth respondent. He further submits that there was a dispute with regard to the identity of the subject lands and application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was filed. He further submits that the fifth respondent under misconception that the subject lands were conveyed in contravention of Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act though the granted lands were not conveyed in favour of any person. Hence, he submits that the necessary direction to be issued to the Tahsildar concerned for 5 mutating the name of the fifth respondent in terms of the Grant Orders dated 21.11.1956 and 03.09.1957.
5. I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The petitioner is the purchaser of the land bearing Sy.Nos.42/1 and 42/2. Respondent No.5 filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act for restoration of the land bearing Sy.Nos.55/3 and 42/1 under the misconception that the said lands have been assigned with the new Sy.Nos.90 and 91. However, respondent No.5 has categorically admitted that the subject lands were not conveyed in favour of any person and having admitted the same, the application filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was not maintainable.
7. Even otherwise, fifth respondent is not entitled for restoration of the subject lands, since 6 application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was filed after an inordinate delay of 27 years.
Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER (1) Writ petition is allowed. (2) Impugned order dated 22.09.2014 passed by the second respondent at Annexure-A and order dated
08.10.2012 passed by third respondent, are hereby quashed.
(3) Fifth respondent is granted liberty to submit an application before the fourth respondent to mutate his name in the revenue records in terms of the Grant Orders dated 21.11.1956 and 03.09.1957.
(4) If such an application is submitted, the fourth respondent to mutate the name of fifth respondent in accordance with law.
7
(5) It is needless to state that the petitioner is entitled for restoration of the lands, if resumed and restored in favour of fifth respondent.
In view of disposal of the writ petition, I.A.No.1/2019 for amendment does not survive for consideration and it stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE DR