Karnataka High Court
Gayathri Devi vs Smt Narayanamma on 13 June, 2012
Bench: Chief Justice, B.V.Nagarathna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.VIKRAMAJIT SEN, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
WRIT APPEAL NO.95 OF 2012(SC-ST)
BETWEEN :
SMT. GAYATHRI DEVI
W/O SRI T ASHWATHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/O H B COMPLEX, NEAR BUS STAND
JANGAMAKOTE, SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI M.RAMA MOHAN, ADV., FOR M/S.RAMA
MOHAN ASSOCIATES, ADVS.,)
AND :
1 SMT NARAYANAMMA
W/O MALLAPPA
AGED MAJOR
R/O JANGAMAKOTE VILLAGE
JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI
SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT
2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHIKKABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION
CHIKKABALLAPUR
3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION
CHIKKABALLAPUR
2
4 SMT NARAYANAMMA
W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED MAJOR
5 SMT N KANTHAMMA
W/O NARAYANASWAMY
AGED MAJOR
6 SMT G S POOJAMMA
W/O P SHIVAPPA
AGED MAJOR
7 SRI G S SATISH KUAMR
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED MAJOR
R-4 TO 7 ARE R/O
JANGAMAKOTE VILLAGE
JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI
SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SIDDAGANGAIAH, ADV., FOR R-1;
SRI B.VEERAPPA, AGA FOR R-2 & 3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.6674/2011
(SC/ST) DATED 30.08.2011.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This Appeal is filed against the concurrent findings of the Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and the Writ Court to the effect that the land in question was a granted land, pursuant to a Dharkhasth made by the forefathers of Respondent No.1 -Smt.Narayanamma, in 3 1935. The Rules prevailing at that time prescribed that the granted land was non-alienable in perpetuity. It appears that the land was purchased by Smt.Malathi Devi in the year 1996 and thereafter sold the same to the Appellant on 08.07.1998. Our attention has been drawn to a decree passed in a Suit for partition initiated in the year 2003, in which the subject land had fallen to the share of the Appellant . This Civil Suit has no bearing or efficacy on the dispute before us for the simple reason that we have to determine the rights of the descendents of the original Grantee, who in this case is Smt.Narayanamma. The learned Single Judge has returned a finding, which we have already observed is concurrent before two previous Authorities, to the effect that the entire land measuring 5 acres 35 guntas in Survey No.49 was granted in favour of four persons belonging to depressed class with a permanent non-alienation condition. The Writ Court has noticed in the impugned order that there is admittedly a violation of Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PTCL Act' for the sake of brevity) inasmuch as the purchaser, Appellant before us, has not applied under the PTCL Act for clearance prior to the purchase.
4
2. It is sought to be contended that there are precedents to the effect that if a particular transaction which is initially voidable has been perfected in any manner known to law prior to 01.01.1979, i.e., the date on which the PTCL Act came into force, it would fall beyond the parameters of the said Act. This is not the case that presents itself before us. We are faced with a sale of land which carries with it a condition of non-alienability in perpetuity. Furthermore, the sale transaction has taken place after the coming into force of the PTCL Act and therefore, regardless of any other condition, violation of Section 4(2) would invalid, completely, the transaction. The learned Single Judge has further noted that the Act overrides any other Statute and also nullifies any decree of a Civil Court. In any event, we fail to appreciate how a Suit filed in 2003 would impact, in any manner whatsoever, the rights of Respondent No.1 in respect of a sale already made prior thereto, that too, in violation of the PTCL Act. The Respondent is unrepresented before us and we fully appreciate the observations made by the learned Single Judge that the PTCL Act imposes an obligation on the Assistant Commissioner to exercise suo motu powers to enforce the objectives of the Act. In these circumstances, therefore, even in the absence of any of the original 5 grantees or their claimants, it is the bounden duty of the State to resume possession and ownership of the land in question, since the purpose of the Grant, i.e., distribution of land to landless persons has been rendered futile. It is expected that consequent upon resumption, the State would consider grant of the said land to other persons who are entitled under the Act, especially in view of Section 5(1)(b) of the PTCL Act. The Appeal is dismissed for these reasons.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE bkv