Karnataka High Court
Sri Malappa Lola vs Sri Subramani on 17 January, 2023
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
WP No. 23357 of 2011
C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011
WP No. 23359 of 2011
WP No. 23360 of 2011
WP No. 23361 of 2011
WP No. 23363 of 2011
WP No. 23364 of 2011
WP No. 23365 of 2011
WP No. 25476 of 2011
WP No. 35808 of 2013
WP No. 35861 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 23357 OF 2011 (SC-ST)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 23358 OF 2011
WRIT PETITION NO. 23359 OF 2011
WRIT PETITION NO. 23360 OF 2011
WRIT PETITION NO. 23361 OF 2011
WRIT PETITION NO. 23363 OF 2011
WRIT PETITION NO. 23364 OF 2011
Digitally
signed by WRIT PETITION NO. 23365 OF 2011
ROOPA R U WRIT PETITION NO. 25476 OF 2011(GM-RES)
Location: WRIT PETITION NO. 35808 OF 2013
High Court of
Karnataka WRIT PETITION NO. 35861 OF 2018
WRIT PETITION NO. 23357 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
1. G UDAYAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
-2-
WP No. 23357 of 2011
C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011
WP No. 23359 of 2011
WP No. 23360 of 2011
WP No. 23361 of 2011
WP No. 23363 of 2011
WP No. 23364 of 2011
WP No. 23365 of 2011
WP No. 25476 of 2011
WP No. 35808 of 2013
WP No. 35861 of 2018
S/O LATE GOVINDARAJ
RESIDING AT NO.25/1
SRIRAMLAYOUT
KRISHNA NAGAR MAIN ROAD
DEVASANDRA
K.R PURAM
BANGALORE - 560 036.
DEAD BY LRS.
1(A) MALARKODI UDAYA KUMAR
W/O LATE G. UDAYA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
1(B) U. DIWAKARAN
S/O LATE G. UDAYA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT
NO.6, THIRUMAGAL, 1ST STREET
KAMBARAJAPURAM
THIRUVALAM
VELLORE - 632 515.
1(C) S. BHUVANESHWARI
D/O LATE G. UDAYA KUMAR
W/O SUKUMARA PRASAD
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
NO.111, GREEN PEARL APARTMENTS
E- BLOCK, PERIYAR STREET
POTHERI, MARAMALAINAGAR - 603 203.
AMENDED AS PER COURT V/O DATED: 29.09.2022
...PETITIONERS
-3-
WP No. 23357 of 2011
C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011
WP No. 23359 of 2011
WP No. 23360 of 2011
WP No. 23361 of 2011
WP No. 23363 of 2011
WP No. 23364 of 2011
WP No. 23365 of 2011
WP No. 25476 of 2011
WP No. 35808 of 2013
WP No. 35861 of 2018
(BY SRI. KALYAN R., ADVOCATE FOR LR's)
AND:
1. SRI. SUBRAMANI
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
CHIKKABASAVANAPURA
K.R. PURAM HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE - 560 049.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION
BANGALORE - 560 009.
3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DISTRICT
BANGALORE - 560 009.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SRIHARI A.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. VENKATASATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R2 & R3)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED:05.04.2011 PASSED BY R3 THE LEARNED
SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE IN CASE
NO.SC.ST(A) 5/2010-11 VIDE ANNEX-A, SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED:26.03.2009 PASSED BY THE R2, THE LEARNED
-4-
WP No. 23357 of 2011
C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011
WP No. 23359 of 2011
WP No. 23360 of 2011
WP No. 23361 of 2011
WP No. 23363 of 2011
WP No. 23364 of 2011
WP No. 23365 of 2011
WP No. 25476 of 2011
WP No. 35808 of 2013
WP No. 35861 of 2018
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (BANGALORE NORTH SUB-
DIVISION), BANGALORE IN CASE NO.K.ST.SC.112/2006-07
VIDE ANNEX -B AND ETC.
IN WP.NO.23358 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
S. ETHIRAJ
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
S/O LATE SAMPANGI
R/AT NO.35, 5TH CROSS
PRIYADARSHINI LAYOUT
KRISHNA NAGAR MAIN ROAD
DEVASANDRA, K.R. PURAM
BANGALORE - 560 036.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.N. ASWATHNARAYAN SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.A. SUDHINDRA, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SRI. SUBRAMANI
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
CHIKKABASAVANAPURA
K.R. PURAM HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE - 560 049.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION
BANGALORE.
-5-
WP No. 23357 of 2011
C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011
WP No. 23359 of 2011
WP No. 23360 of 2011
WP No. 23361 of 2011
WP No. 23363 of 2011
WP No. 23364 of 2011
WP No. 23365 of 2011
WP No. 25476 of 2011
WP No. 35808 of 2013
WP No. 35861 of 2018
3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DISTRICT
BANGALORE.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SRIHARI A.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. VENKATASATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R2 & R3)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED:05.04.2011 PASSED BY R3 THE LEARNED
SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE - A, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:26.03.2009
PASSED BY THE R2, THE LEARNED ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
(BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION), BANGALORE PRODUCED
AS ANNEXURE - B AND ETC.
IN WP.NO.23359 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
JAYANTHI RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
W/O V. RAMESH BABU
R/AT NO.10,3RD COSS
PRIYADRSHINI LAYOUT
DEVASANDRA
K.R. PURAM
BANGALORE - 560 036.
...PETITIONER
-6-
WP No. 23357 of 2011
C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011
WP No. 23359 of 2011
WP No. 23360 of 2011
WP No. 23361 of 2011
WP No. 23363 of 2011
WP No. 23364 of 2011
WP No. 23365 of 2011
WP No. 25476 of 2011
WP No. 35808 of 2013
WP No. 35861 of 2018
(BY SRI. S.N. ASWATHNARAYAN SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.A. SUDHINDRA, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SRI. SUBRAMANI
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
CHIKKABASAVANAPURA
K.R. PURAM HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE - 560 049.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION
BANGALORE.
3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DISTRICT
BANGALORE.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SRIHARI A.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. VENKATASATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R2 & R3)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED:05.04.2011 PASSED BY R3 THE LEARNED
SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE - A, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:26.03.2009
PASSED BY THE R2, THE LEARNED ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
-7-
WP No. 23357 of 2011
C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011
WP No. 23359 of 2011
WP No. 23360 of 2011
WP No. 23361 of 2011
WP No. 23363 of 2011
WP No. 23364 of 2011
WP No. 23365 of 2011
WP No. 25476 of 2011
WP No. 35808 of 2013
WP No. 35861 of 2018
(BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION), BANGALORE PRODUCED
AS ANNEXURE - B AND ETC.
IN WP.NO.23360 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
DONALD ANTHONY JAMES
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
S/O N.J. JAMES
MKK ROAD
BESIDE LAKSHMI NILAYA
SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 201.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.N. ASWATHNARAYAN SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.A. SUDHINDRA, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SRI. SUBRAMANI
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
CHIKKABASAVANAPURA
K.R. PURAM HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE - 560 049.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION
BANGALORE.
-8-
WP No. 23357 of 2011
C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011
WP No. 23359 of 2011
WP No. 23360 of 2011
WP No. 23361 of 2011
WP No. 23363 of 2011
WP No. 23364 of 2011
WP No. 23365 of 2011
WP No. 25476 of 2011
WP No. 35808 of 2013
WP No. 35861 of 2018
3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DISTRICT
BANGALORE.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SRIHARI A.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. VENKATASATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R2 & R3)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED:05.04.2011 PASSED BY R3 THE LEARNED
SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE IN CASE
NO.SC.ST(A)143/2009-2010 VIDE ANNEXURE - A, SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED:26.03.2009 PASSED BY THE R2, THE
LEARNED ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (BANGALORE NORTH
SUB-DIVISION), BANGALORE IN CASE NO.K.S.T.SC/112/2006-
07) VIDE ANNEXURE - B AND ETC.
IN WP.NO.23361 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
SAVITHRI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
W/O PANEER SELVAN
R/AT NO.28, GIDDAMMA LAYOUT
A. NARAYANAPURA EXTENSION
AKASH NAGAR
DOORAVANI NAGAR
-9-
WP No. 23357 of 2011
C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011
WP No. 23359 of 2011
WP No. 23360 of 2011
WP No. 23361 of 2011
WP No. 23363 of 2011
WP No. 23364 of 2011
WP No. 23365 of 2011
WP No. 25476 of 2011
WP No. 35808 of 2013
WP No. 35861 of 2018
KRISHNARAJAPURAM
BANGALORE - 560 036.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.N. ASWATHNARAYAN SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.A. SUDHINDRA, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SRI. SUBRAMANI
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
CHIKKABASAVANAPURA
K.R. PURAM HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE - 560 049.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION
BANGALORE.
3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DISTRICT
BANGALORE.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SRIHARI A.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. VENKATASATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R2 & R3)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED:05.04.2011 PASSED BY R3 THE LEARNED
SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE PRODUCED AS
- 10 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011
C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011
WP No. 23359 of 2011
WP No. 23360 of 2011
WP No. 23361 of 2011
WP No. 23363 of 2011
WP No. 23364 of 2011
WP No. 23365 of 2011
WP No. 25476 of 2011
WP No. 35808 of 2013
WP No. 35861 of 2018
ANNEXURE - A, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:26.03.2009
PASSED BY THE R2, THE LEARNED ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
(BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION), BANGALORE PRODUCED
AS VIDE ANNEXURE - B AND ETC.
IN WP.NO.23363 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MALAPPA LOLA
S/O LATE IRAPA LOLA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
2. SRI. RAJAKUMAR LOLA
S/O LATE IRAPA LOLA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
BOTH R/AT NO.801
WHITEFIELD ROAD
MAHADEVAPURA POST
RAJAPALYA, BANGALORE - 560 048.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S.N. ASWATHNARAYAN SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.A. SUDHINDRA, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SRI. SUBRAMANI
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
CHIKKABASAVANAPURA
K.R. PURAM HOBLI
- 11 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011
C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011
WP No. 23359 of 2011
WP No. 23360 of 2011
WP No. 23361 of 2011
WP No. 23363 of 2011
WP No. 23364 of 2011
WP No. 23365 of 2011
WP No. 25476 of 2011
WP No. 35808 of 2013
WP No. 35861 of 2018
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE - 560 049.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION
BANGALORE.
3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DISTRICT
BANGALORE.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SRIHARI A.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. VENKATASATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R2 & R3)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED:05.04.2011 PASSED BY R3 THE LEARNED
SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE - A, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:26.03.2009
PASSED BY THE R2, THE LEARNED ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
(BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION), BANGALORE PRODUCED
AS VIDE ANNEXURE - B AND ETC.
IN WP.NO.23364 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
SIDDARAMA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
- 12 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011
C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011
WP No. 23359 of 2011
WP No. 23360 of 2011
WP No. 23361 of 2011
WP No. 23363 of 2011
WP No. 23364 of 2011
WP No. 23365 of 2011
WP No. 25476 of 2011
WP No. 35808 of 2013
WP No. 35861 of 2018
S/O LATE PUTTA NAIK
R/AT NO.48, BASAVANAPURA
PRIYADARSHINI LAYOUT
5TH CROSS
KRISHNARAJAPURAM
BANGALORE - 560 036.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.N. ASWATHNARAYAN SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.A. SUDHINDRA, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SRI. SUBRAMANI
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
CHIKKABASAVANAPURA
K.R. PURAM HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE - 560 049.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION
BANGALORE.
3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DISTRICT
BANGALORE.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SRIHARI A.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. VENKATASATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R2 & R3)
- 13 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011
C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011
WP No. 23359 of 2011
WP No. 23360 of 2011
WP No. 23361 of 2011
WP No. 23363 of 2011
WP No. 23364 of 2011
WP No. 23365 of 2011
WP No. 25476 of 2011
WP No. 35808 of 2013
WP No. 35861 of 2018
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED:05.04.2011 PASSED BY R3 THE LEARNED
SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE IN CASE
NO.SC.ST(A) 144/09-10 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE - A, SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:26.03.2009 PASSED BY THE R2,
THE LEARNED ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (BANGALORE
NORTH SUB-DIVISION), BANGALORE IN CASE
NO.K.SC.ST.112/2006-07 PRODUCED AS VIDE ANNEXURE - B
AND ETC.
IN WP.NO.23365 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
P. DEVI
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS
1(a) SRI. SHARAVANAN P. SHEKAR
S/O LATE P. SHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
1(b) SMT. SHAHIDA
W/O LATE HAMASA E.H
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
PETITIONER NO.1(a) AND 1(b)
ARE R/AT NO.7
4TH CROSS, PRIYADARSHINI LAYOUT
- 14 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011
C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011
WP No. 23359 of 2011
WP No. 23360 of 2011
WP No. 23361 of 2011
WP No. 23363 of 2011
WP No. 23364 of 2011
WP No. 23365 of 2011
WP No. 25476 of 2011
WP No. 35808 of 2013
WP No. 35861 of 2018
KRISHNANAGAR
K.R. PURAM
BANGALORE - 560 036.
1(c) SMT. SELVI
W/O DESING RAJA V.,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT NO.18/A
3RD CROSS, PRIYADARSHINI LAYOUT
KRISHNANAGAR
K.R. PURAM
BANGALORE - 560 036.
(AMENDED PETITION V/O DATED:23.05.2022)
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S.N. ASWATHNARAYAN SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.A. SUDHINDRA, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SRI. SUBRAMANI
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
CHIKKABASAVANAPURA
K.R. PURAM HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE - 560 049.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION
BANGALORE.
- 15 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011
C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011
WP No. 23359 of 2011
WP No. 23360 of 2011
WP No. 23361 of 2011
WP No. 23363 of 2011
WP No. 23364 of 2011
WP No. 23365 of 2011
WP No. 25476 of 2011
WP No. 35808 of 2013
WP No. 35861 of 2018
3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DISTRICT
BANGALORE.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SRIHARI A.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. VENKATASATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R2 & R3)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED:05.04.2011 PASSED BY R3 THE LEARNED
SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE - A, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:26.03.2009
PASSED BY THE R2, THE LEARNED ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
(BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION), BANGALORE PRODUCED
AS VIDE ANNEXURE - B AND ETC.
IN WP.NO.25476 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. PYARE ZAAN
W/O MASTAN SAHEB
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT NO. 333/3
BABA LANE
DASTAGIRI.
- 16 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011
C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011
WP No. 23359 of 2011
WP No. 23360 of 2011
WP No. 23361 of 2011
WP No. 23363 of 2011
WP No. 23364 of 2011
WP No. 23365 of 2011
WP No. 25476 of 2011
WP No. 35808 of 2013
WP No. 35861 of 2018
2. SRI THIRUMALA RAJA A S
S/O A V SATHYANARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT NO.15, 2ND CROSS
PRIYADARSHINI LAYOUT
BASAVANAPURA, K R PURAM
BANGALORE-560036.
3. SRI R SRINIVAS
S/O RAMASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT NO. 26, 3RD CROSS
PRIYADARSHINI LAYOUT
BASAVANAPURA, K R PURAM
BANGALORE-560 036.
4. SRI R V PRABHAKAR SINGH
S/O M K RAM SINGH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT NO. 220-A, PRIYADARSHINI
LAYOUTBASAVANAPURA, K R PURAM
BANGALORE-560 036.
5. SRI D ASEERVADAM
S/O A T DEVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT CHIKKADEVASANDRA
KRISHNARAJA PURAM
BANGALRORE.
6. SRI S. ETHIRAJ
S/O LATE SAMPANGI
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
R/AT NO.35, 5TH CROSS
- 17 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011
C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011
WP No. 23359 of 2011
WP No. 23360 of 2011
WP No. 23361 of 2011
WP No. 23363 of 2011
WP No. 23364 of 2011
WP No. 23365 of 2011
WP No. 25476 of 2011
WP No. 35808 of 2013
WP No. 35861 of 2018
PRIYADARSHINI LAYOUT
KRISHNA NAGAR MAIN ROAD
DEVASANDRA, K R PURAM
BANGALORE-560 036.
7. SRI G UDAYAKUMAR
S/O LATE GOVINDARAJ
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT NO. 25/1, SRIRAM LAYOUT
KRISHNA NAGAR MAIN ROAD
DEVASANDRA, K R PURAM
BANGALORE-560 036.
8. SRI SIDDARAMA NAIK
S/O LATE PUTTA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT NO. 48
BASAVANAPURA,
PRIYADARSHINI LAYOUT
5TH CROSS
KRISHNARAJAPUAM
BANGALORE-560 036.
9. SMT. JAYANTHI RAMESH
W/O V RAMESH BABU
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT NO.10, 3RD CROSS
PRIYADARSHINI LAYOUT
DEVASANDRA, K R PURAM
BANGALORE-560 036.
10 . SMT. SAVITHRI
W/O PANEER SELVAN
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
- 18 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011
C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011
WP No. 23359 of 2011
WP No. 23360 of 2011
WP No. 23361 of 2011
WP No. 23363 of 2011
WP No. 23364 of 2011
WP No. 23365 of 2011
WP No. 25476 of 2011
WP No. 35808 of 2013
WP No. 35861 of 2018
R/AT NO. 28, GIDDAMMA LAYOUT
A NARAYANAPURA EXTENSION
AKASH NAGAR, DOORAVANI NAGAR
KRISHNARAJAPURAM
BANGALORE-560 036.
11 . SMT. P DEVI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
W/O P SHEKAR NO.7
4TH CROSS
PRIYADARSHINI LAYOUT
KRISHNA NAGAR
K R PURAM POST
BANGALORE-560 036.
12 . SRI MALAPPA LOLA
S/O LATE IRAPA LOLA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT NO. 801, WHITEFIELD ROAD
MAHADEVAPURA POST
RAJAPALYA
BANGALORE-560 048.
13 . SRI RAJAKUMAR LOLA
S/O LATE IRAPA LOLA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT NO. 801, WHITEFIELD ROAD
MAHADEVAPURA POST
RAJAPALYA
BANGALORE-560 048.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. G. MANIVANNAN, ADVOCATE)
- 19 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011
C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011
WP No. 23359 of 2011
WP No. 23360 of 2011
WP No. 23361 of 2011
WP No. 23363 of 2011
WP No. 23364 of 2011
WP No. 23365 of 2011
WP No. 25476 of 2011
WP No. 35808 of 2013
WP No. 35861 of 2018
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION
BANGALORE.
3. SRI G S NAYAK (KAS)
THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DISTRICT
NEAR CITY CIVIL COURT BANGALORE.
4. SRI SHIVKUMAR
THE TAHSILDAR
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE-560 036.
5. SRI. SUBRAMANI
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
CHIKKABASAVANAPURA
K.R. PURAM HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE - 560 049.
AMENDED AS PER COURT V/O DATED:25.11.2011
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKATASATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4;
SMT. M.D. ANURATH URS., ADVOCATE FOR R5)
- 20 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011
C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011
WP No. 23359 of 2011
WP No. 23360 of 2011
WP No. 23361 of 2011
WP No. 23363 of 2011
WP No. 23364 of 2011
WP No. 23365 of 2011
WP No. 25476 of 2011
WP No. 35808 of 2013
WP No. 35861 of 2018
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT
RESPONDENT NO.3, THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE AND RESPONDENT NO.4, THE TAHSILDAR,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK NOT TO INITIATE ANY ACTION
PURSUANT TO THE LETTER DATED 21.06.2011 ADDRESSED BY
THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TO THE TAHSILDAR,
PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-H AND THE LETTER
DATED:27.6.2011 BEARING NO.PTCL/CR/26/09-10,
ADDRESSED BY THE TAHSILDAR TO THE KRISHNARAJAPURAM
POLICE STATION, PRODUCED ANNEXURE-A, TILL THE PENDING
CASES ARE DECIDED AND ETC.
IN WP.NO.35808 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
1. G. SAMPATH
S/O M. GANESHAN
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RESIDING @ FA 470
OLD TOWNSHIP
HAL COLONY
VIMANAPURA POST
BANGALORE-560 017.
2. A M FERNANDO
S/O JEYRAJ FERNANDO
- 21 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011
C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011
WP No. 23359 of 2011
WP No. 23360 of 2011
WP No. 23361 of 2011
WP No. 23363 of 2011
WP No. 23364 of 2011
WP No. 23365 of 2011
WP No. 25476 of 2011
WP No. 35808 of 2013
WP No. 35861 of 2018
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
12, 2ND CROSS
PRIYADHARSHINI LAYOUT
DEVASANDRA MN ROAD
K R PURAM
BANGALORE-560 026.
3. G. GAJENDRAN
S/O GOVINDHAN
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
8/31, SOUTH CROSS STREET
NEELSANDRA
BANGALORE-560 047.
4. M KUPPUSWAMY
S/O MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
170, 3RD CROSS
YOGAPPA BLOCK
V NAGENAHALLI
R T NAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560 032.
5. VIPLOV KUMAR
S/O BINOD KUMAR SINGH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
# 20, 2ND CROSS
PRIYADHARSHINI LAYOUT
DEVASANDRA MAIN ROAD
K R PURAM
BANGALORE-560 006.
6. K YASHODAMMA
W/O Y.S. SRINIVAS
- 22 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011
C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011
WP No. 23359 of 2011
WP No. 23360 of 2011
WP No. 23361 of 2011
WP No. 23363 of 2011
WP No. 23364 of 2011
WP No. 23365 of 2011
WP No. 25476 of 2011
WP No. 35808 of 2013
WP No. 35861 of 2018
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
# 14, PRIYADHARSHINI LAYOUT
MAIN ROAD
DEVASANDRA MAIN
ROAD, K R PURAM
BANGALORE-560006.
7. K SRINIVASA RAO
S/O KONDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
# 35, 5TH CROSS
PRIYADHARSHINI LAYOUT
DEVASANDRA MAIN ROAD
K R PURAM
BANGALORE-560 006.
8. H BANUMATHI
W/O HARIKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
# 22, 5TH CROSS
PRIYADHARSHINI LAYOUT
DEVASANDRA MAIN ROAD
K R PURAM
BANGALORE-560 006.
9. R B PRABHAKAR SINGH
S/O RAM SINGH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
# 1, 4TH CROSS
PRIYADHARSHINI LAYOUT
DEVASANDRA MAIN ROAD
K R PURAM
BANGALORE-560 006.
- 23 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011
C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011
WP No. 23359 of 2011
WP No. 23360 of 2011
WP No. 23361 of 2011
WP No. 23363 of 2011
WP No. 23364 of 2011
WP No. 23365 of 2011
WP No. 25476 of 2011
WP No. 35808 of 2013
WP No. 35861 of 2018
10 . K SUGUNA
S/O K SHEKAR
AGED ABOURT 48 YEARS
# 58/2, 8TH MAIN ROAD
2ND CROSS
PRAKASH NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 021.
11 . B.G. NARAYANSWAMY
S/O GOPALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
# 2, 4TH CROSS
PRIYADHARSHINI LAYOUT
DEVASANDRA MAIN ROAD
K R PURAM
BANGALORE-560 006.
12 . PARIZAN
W/O MASTHON SHAHEB
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
25/26, 5TH CROSS
PRIYADHARSHINI LAYOUT
DEVASANDRA MAIN ROAD
K R PURAM
BANGALORE-560 006.
13 . THIRUMAL RAJ A S
S/O SATHYANARAYANAN
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
# 15, 2ND CROSS
PRIYADHARSHINI LAYOUT
DEVASANDRA MAIN ROAD
K R PURAM, BANGALORE-560 006.
- 24 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011
C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011
WP No. 23359 of 2011
WP No. 23360 of 2011
WP No. 23361 of 2011
WP No. 23363 of 2011
WP No. 23364 of 2011
WP No. 23365 of 2011
WP No. 25476 of 2011
WP No. 35808 of 2013
WP No. 35861 of 2018
14 . JAYA PRAKASH P.S.
S/O LATE SHESHADRI
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
SRI RAMA TEMPLE
10TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN
BANGALORE-560027.
15 . V PAKARISWAMY
S/O VEERASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
# 27/1, MICHEAL PLAYA
NEW THIPPASANDRA POST
BANGALORE-560075.
16 . KUMARESH
S/O T KUPPUSWAMY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
# 79, 2ND CROSS
MARUTHI MANDHIR
SABANNA GARDEN
VIJAYA NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 040.
17 . V MEENA BAI
W/O NAMADEV RAO
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
# 195, 15TH CROSS
2ND MAIN ROAD
SUBRAMANI NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 021.
18 . N SAMPATH
W/O LATE K NARASIMAHALU NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
- 25 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011
C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011
WP No. 23359 of 2011
WP No. 23360 of 2011
WP No. 23361 of 2011
WP No. 23363 of 2011
WP No. 23364 of 2011
WP No. 23365 of 2011
WP No. 25476 of 2011
WP No. 35808 of 2013
WP No. 35861 of 2018
# 11, 4TH CROSS
PRIYADHARSHINI LAYOUT
DEVASNADRA MAIN ROAD
K R PURAM
BANGALORE-560006.
19 . SMT. DEVAMMA
W/O LATE K. SATHYANARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
# 24, 5TH CROSS
PRIYADHARSHINI LAYOUT
DEVASANDRA MAIN ROAD
K R PURAM
BANGALORE-560 006.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S.N. ASWATHNARAYAN SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.A. SUDHINDRA, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
K G ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001.
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION
- 26 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011
C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011
WP No. 23359 of 2011
WP No. 23360 of 2011
WP No. 23361 of 2011
WP No. 23363 of 2011
WP No. 23364 of 2011
WP No. 23365 of 2011
WP No. 25476 of 2011
WP No. 35808 of 2013
WP No. 35861 of 2018
KANDAYA BHAVANA
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001.
4. THASILDHAR
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
K R PURAM
BANGALORE-560 036.
5. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR
K R PURAM HOBLI
K R PURAM
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE - 560 036.
6. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT
BASAVANAPURA VILLAGE
K R PURAM HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE - 560 036.
7. SRI. SUBRAMANI
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
CHIKKABASAVANAPURA
K.R. PURAM HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE - 560 049.
AMENDED AS PER COURT V/O DATED:19.08.2013
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKATASATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R6;
SRI. D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
- 27 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011
C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011
WP No. 23359 of 2011
WP No. 23360 of 2011
WP No. 23361 of 2011
WP No. 23363 of 2011
WP No. 23364 of 2011
WP No. 23365 of 2011
WP No. 25476 of 2011
WP No. 35808 of 2013
WP No. 35861 of 2018
SRI. SRIHARI A.V., ADVOCATE FOR R7)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT A
CERTIORARI OR ANY WRIT OR QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED
VIDE ANNEXURE -A DATED:19.12.2011 BEARING
NO.PTCL/CR/26/09-10, BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4.
IN WP.NO.35861 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
SMT. DEVAMMA
W/O. LATE K. SATHYANARAYANA
R/AT NO. 24, 5TH CROSS
PRIYADARSHINI LAYOUT
DEVASANDRA MAIN ROAD
K.R. PURAM
BANGALORE-560 006.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K. SURESH DESAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SRI. NARAYANA
S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA
R/AT 5TH CROSS
OPPOSITE SAPALAMMA TEMPLE
CHIKKABASAVANAPURA VILLAGE
VIRGONAGAR POST
K.R. PURAM
BANGALORE-560 049.
- 28 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011
C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011
WP No. 23359 of 2011
WP No. 23360 of 2011
WP No. 23361 of 2011
WP No. 23363 of 2011
WP No. 23364 of 2011
WP No. 23365 of 2011
WP No. 25476 of 2011
WP No. 35808 of 2013
WP No. 35861 of 2018
2 . THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
BANGALORE.
3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION
BANGALORE.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SRIHARI A.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. VENKATASATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R2 & R3)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED:02.06.2017 PASSED BY R3 THE LEARNED
SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE - A, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:29.11.2016
PASSED BY THE R2, THE LEARNED ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
(BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION), BANGALORE PRODUCED
AS ANNEXURE - B AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
- 29 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011
C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011
WP No. 23359 of 2011
WP No. 23360 of 2011
WP No. 23361 of 2011
WP No. 23363 of 2011
WP No. 23364 of 2011
WP No. 23365 of 2011
WP No. 25476 of 2011
WP No. 35808 of 2013
WP No. 35861 of 2018
ORDER
Writ petitions Nos.23357/2011, 23358/2011, 23359/2011, 23360/2011, 23361/2011, 23363/2011, 23364/2011, 23365/2011, are directed against the order dated 05.04.2011 passed by respondent No.3 -Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, in Case No.ST.SC(A)139/2009-10 and connected matters as per Annexure-A and against the order dated 26.03.2009 passed by respondent No.2- Assistant Commissioner (Bangalore North Sub-Division), Bangalore, in Case No.K.ST.SC 112/2006-07 as per Annexure-B. Writ Petition No.25476/2011 is filed seeking direction to the respondents/authorities not to initiate action pursuant to a letter dated 26.11.2011 and letter dated 27.06.2011 issued by the Tahsildar seeking Police protection and the Writ petition No.35808/2013 is filed seeking quash of
- 30 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 transfer letter dated 19.12.2011 produced at Annexure-A therein. W.P.No.35861/2018 is directed against order dated 29.11.2016 passed by the Respondent No.2-Special Deputy Commissioner and the order dated 30.11.2012 passed by the Respondent No.3 -Assistant Commissioner.
2. By order dated 26.03.2009 the Assistant Commissioner while declaring various deeds of sale referred to therein as null and void on the premise of same being in violation of provisions of the Karnataka Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as `KPTCL Act') in respect of land in Sy.No.25, new Sy.No.25/1 measuring 3 acres 20 guntas situated at Basavanapura Village of K.R.Pura Taluq, (hereinafter referred to as `subject land') had directed resumption and restoration of the subject land to the legal representatives
- 31 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 of the original grantees. Aggrieved by the said order appeals were preferred by the purchasers before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, who by his order dated 05.04.2011 dismissed the said appeals confirming the order passed by Assistant Commissioner. In the said orders both the Assistant Commissioner as well as Deputy Commissioner have concurrently held that the original grantees belonged to `Schedule Caste Community' and that the subject land falls within the provisions of KPTCL Act. It is further held that the alienation of the subject land by forming sites therein was without obtaining prior permission as contemplated under Section 4(2) of the KPTCL Act and also without obtaining change of land usage as envisaged under the provisions of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 read with Rule 107 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. Thereafter by communication dated 19.12.2011 the
- 32 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk, K.R.Pura, in furtherance to the aforesaid order of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner had delivered/restored the physical possession of the subject land to the legal representatives of the original grantees subject to conditions with regard to existence of houses in a portion of subject land to an extent of 35 guntas out of 3 acres 20 guntas. It is these orders and communications which are challenged in these writ petitions.
3. Facts leading up to filing of these writ petitions as stated by the petitioners are:
3.1 That out of the subject land measuring 3 acres 20 guntas, an extent of 2 acres of land was granted in favour of one Sri.Chikkanagappa and the remaining extent of 1 acre 20 guntas of land was granted in favour of his
- 33 -WP No. 23357 of 2011 C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018
son Sri.Muniyappa in the year 1979. That a Saguvali chit dated 19.04.1979 evidencing said grant was issued in favour of the grantees.
3.2 That the said Chikkanagappa and Muniyappa had on 16.11.1988 applied to the Special Deputy Commissioner seeking permission to alienate the subject land. That the Deputy Commissioner had granted permission on 18.03.1989 permitting them to alienate the subject land by depositing half of the market value of the subject land and by furnishing an undertaking to buy alternate land from the remaining amount as per Rule 9(1) of the Land Grant Rules. That the said Chikkanagappa and Muniyappa stated to have passed away after obtaining required permission to alienate the said land leaving behind their legal representatives.
- 34 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 3.3 The legal representatives of said Muniyappa namely (1) Smt.Gangamma (2) Sri.Subramani (respondent No.1) (3) Munivenkatamma (4) Sri.Venkatesh (5) Sri.Govindappa (6) Sri.Narayana (7) Nagaraja (8) Jayaram and (9) Manjunath being his wife and children respectively, had executed a registered power of attorney dated 16.03.1995 in favour of one Sri.D.A.Thimmaiah authorising him to do and cause to be done certain acts and deeds on their behalf as enumerated in the said power of attorney in respect of subject land.
3.4 That the aforesaid Sri.D.A.Thimmaiah had formed a layout consisting of sites of various dimension in the subject land and thereafter sold said sites in favour of various persons including the petitioners herein under various registered deeds of sale as detailed hereunder:
- 35 -WP No. 23357 of 2011 C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018
SL. W.P.NO. PETITIONER SITE SALE DEED
NO. NO. DATE
1. 23357/2011 G.UDAYA KUMAR 31 &32 04.05.2001
DEAD BY LRS
2. 23358/2011 S.ETHIRAJ 35& 38 11.06.2001
3. 23359/2011 JAYANTHI RAMESH 4&5 04.04.2001
4. 23360/2011 DONALD ANTHONY 10 & 11 16.04.2001
JAMES
5. 23361/2011 SAVITHRI 5&6 26.06.2001
6. 23363/2011 MALLAPPA LOLA 8&9 14.06.2001
AND ANOTHER
7. 23364/2011 SIDDARAMA NAIK 48 05.10.2001
8. 23365/2011 P DEVI BY LRs 7 10.05.2001
9. 25476/2011 PYARE JAAN AND - -
OTHERS.
10. 35808/2013 G SAMPATH AND - -
OTHERS
11. 35861/2018 DEVAMMA 24 09.12.1999
3.5 That after the purchase of the sites by the petitioners as referred to above their names have been mutated in the revenue records and that they have been paying the property taxes. That the petitioners after obtaining building plans and licences have constructed residential houses on their respective sites and thus have been enjoying the same as absolute owners thereof.
- 36 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 3.6 That when things stood thus during first week of November, 2009 petitioners were informed by respondent No.1 that he had filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of KPTCL Act and that said application had been allowed by order dated 26.03.2009 holding that there is violation of provisions of KPTCL Act and consequently directed handing over of possession of land/sites to the legal representatives of the grantees.
3.7 That the petitioners immediately applied and obtained certified copy of the order dated 26.03.2009 passed by Assistant Commissioner and learnt that the respondent No.1 had made an application seeking restoration of land by cancellation of deeds of sale which were executed in favour of the petitioners by the power of attorney holder of legal representatives of grantees
- 37 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 including respondent No.1 alleging that the petitioners and others had obtained their signatures on blank papers and had thus created general power of attorney. That the legal representatives of the grantees including respondent No.1 had no knowledge of execution of deeds of sale and that no permission had been obtained from the Government as required under the KPTCL Act. 3.8 That though the petitioners had been arrayed as respondents in the said proceedings before respondent No.2, no notices were issued to the petitioners. Thus, aggrieved by the order dated 26.03.2009 passed by Assistant Commissioner the petitioners filed appeals under Section 5 of the KPTCL Act before the Special Deputy Commissioner who by his order dated 05.04.2011 dismissed the appeals without even affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioners. That subsequently the
- 38 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 Tahasildar by letter dated 19.12.2011 had delivered physical possession of the subject land, excluding 35 guntas which consisted of houses, to the legal representatives of the grantees and had also sought police assistance in the process. Thus, being aggrieved by the said orders and communications, the petitioners are before this court.
4. Statement of objections has been filed by the respondent No.1 to the writ petitions denying the petition averments. It is contended that the power of attorney dated 16.03.1995 was obtained by Sri.D.A.Thimmaiah who was the former President of City Municipal Corporation, K.R.Puram. That the executants of the said power of attorney were uneducated and ignorant and were not aware of the contents of the document. It is also contended that in any event Clause 17 of the power of
- 39 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 attorney merely reads that the said D.A.Thimmaiah was authorized "to form layout after conversion, to make sites, sell the sites to respective buyers, to sign all papers, to sanction plans, to do all other acts, deeds and things".
4.1 Though the averment regarding Chikkanagappa and Muniyappa applying for permission is admitted, the subsequent averment of grant of such permission is denied. It is contended that documents at Annexure-G, H and J being applications seeking permission and the order passed thereon, are merely the process and procedure adopted for grant of permission and they are not the documents evidencing grant of permission as claimed by the petitioners.
4.2 It is further contended that Chikkanagappa and Muniyappa though had attempted to obtain permission they were not successful as they did not have required
- 40 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 amount to be paid and that they passed away even before grant of any permission. As such, the said proceedings were dropped/closed on 07.02.1997. Thus, there is no permission granted on the said applications.
4.3 It is further contended that in terms of Section 4 of KPTCL Act no person other than the Government can accord permission to sell granted land. That the petitioners being aware of the fact that the grantees belong to `Bhovi' community which is a schedule caste community, ought to have purchased the property only after obtaining the permission.
4.4 That the land has been conveyed without even obtaining conversion order as provided under clause 17 of the power of attorney. That it was the obligation on the part of the petitioners to have ascertained the title and
- 41 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 compliance with other statutory requirements before purchasing the property.
4.5 That the respondent No.1 was unaware of the contents of the power of attorney which was registered in the year 1995. That only in the year 2004 while some of the purchasers attempted to put up construction the respondent No.1 and his family members learnt about the alienation and immediately filed suit in O.S.No.831/2004 against one of the purchasers. It is thereafter respondent No.1 traced deeds of sale and shocked to learn execution of deeds of sale by aforesaid Sri.D.A.Thimmaiah without obtaining permission and without obtaining conversion as required under law. That there are several deeds of sale executed on the basis of aforesaid power of attorney. That the petitioners being fully aware of land belonging to
- 42 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 the persons of scheduled caste community are taking undue advantage of their vulnerable position. 4.6 That the petitioners have put up constructions and residing in the houses most of which constructed during the pendency of the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner. As such they are not entitled for any equitable relief. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petitions.
5. Petitioners filed a memo dated 08.08.2018/03.09.2021 producing following additional documents in support of their case:
(1) Copy of agreement of sale dated 01.02.1995 executed by Gangamma in favour of Sri.D.A.Thimmaiah along with typed copy. (2) Copy of affidavit sworn to by Gangamma and others dated 16.03.1995.
- 43 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 (3) Copy of affidavit sworn to by Gangamma dated 31.12.1994.
By another memo dated 02.11.2022 petitioners produced further documents namely;
(1) Copy of the license.
(2) Copy of the layout plan.
(3) Copy of tax paid receipts.
(4) Copy of betterment charges.
(5) Copy of khata.
(6) Photographs.
6. Heard Sri. S.N.Ashwathnarayana, learned Senior counsel for Sri.S.A.Sudhindra and Sri.Kalyan R., learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.D.N.Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for Sri.Srihari A.V., learned counsel for respondent No.1, learned AGA for respondents 2 and 3. Perused the records.
7. Sri.S.N.Ashwathnarayana, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of writ petitions submitted that;
- 44 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 7.1 That the land measuring 2 acres was granted in favour of Chikkanagabhovi and 1 acre 20 guntas in favour of Muniyappa on 12.03.1978 totally measuring 3 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.25/1 with a condition of non-alienation for a period of 15 years.
7.2 That by an agreement dated 01.02.1995 Smt.Gangamma, wife of Muniyappa had agreed to sell 3 acres 20 guntas of land in favour of Sri.D.A.Thimmaiah. That in pursuance thereof a power of attorney dated 16.03.1995 was also executed and registered by the legal representatives of the grantees.
7.3 Referring to the copies of affidavits dated 16.03.1995 and 31.12.1994 produced along with a memo dated 08.08.2018/03.09.2021 learned Senior counsel submits that the contents of the said affidavits have to be
- 45 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 read along with the power of attorney dated 16.03.1995 which would clarify that the said power of attorney is one coupled with interest. That the said transaction amounted to "transfer" within the meaning of Section 3(1)(e) of the KPTCL Act. He submits that the sale deeds have been executed in furtherance to the said power of attorney in favour of the petitioners who are before this court.
7.4 That the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner was initiated on 07.12.2006 under the KPTCL Act whereas the transfer has taken place as early as on 01.02.1995 and 16.03.1995 when the agreement to sell and power of attorney respectively, were executed. Thus, he submits that the initiation of proceedings not being within the reasonable time, the impugned orders are required to be set aside having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA
- 46 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018
LAKSHMI Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232.
7.5 That betterment charges have been paid on the subject land and the subject land had come within the limits of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) which is collecting property tax and other levies. As such, the land is deemed to have been converted from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes and the subject land has thus lost its agricultural nature.
7.6 That the entire subject land has been completely developed. That the BBMP has formed roads and the said roads are being maintained by BBMP. That the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board(BWSSB) has provided water and sewage connection to all the houses that have come up in the said layout. That there are about 60 houses and about 300 persons are residing in the said
- 47 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 layout. Since the land has lost its agricultural character the provisions of KPTCL Act are not applicable. That the impugned order has been passed without affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioners as no notice was served on all the petitioners. That the Deputy Commissioner decided the appeal in the absence of the petitioners which is illegal and unsustainable. Hence, seeks for allowing of the writ petitions by setting aside the impugned orders.
7.7 Sri. Kalyan, learned counsel for petitioner in WP No.23357/2011 supplementing the arguments of learned Senior counsel Sri. S.N.Ashwathnarayana further submits that there has been no challenge to the agreement dated 01.02.1995 and the General power of attorney dated 16.03.1995 as such the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner committed error in accepting the
- 48 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 case of the respondent No.1. He submits that since there is no challenge to the said transactions the aspect of delay in initiating the proceedings has to be considered in favour of the petitioners.
7.8 Drawing attention of this court to Section 5(1)(b) of the KPTCL Act, learned counsel submits that considering the change of nature and character of land and its present developed condition, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 ought to have seen that resumption and restoration the land to the grantees was not a viable option. Thus, he submits that there is no compliance of the said provisions of the KPTCL Act. Hence, he submits that petitioners are entitled to the relief as sought for.
7.9 Learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon the following judgments in support of his submissions;
- 49 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018
(i) Smt. Narasamma and others vs. K.V. Ramprasad and another - ILR 2012 Kar 4261
(ii) B.M.Hanumanthappa vs. Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga and others -1990 (2) KAR.LJ 401.
(iii) D.K.Abdul Kunhi vs. State of Karnataka and others 2000 (4) KCCR SN 389
(iv) Sri. Narayanamma and another vs. Govindappa and others - (2019) 19 SCC 42
(v) J.M. Narayana and others vs. Corporation of the City of Bangalore and othes - ILR 2005 Kar 60
(vi) Sri Munnaiah and others vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore- ILR 2021 Kar 3169
(vii) K Abdul Hameed and others vs. State of Karnataka and others - 1999 (1) Kar. L.J. 502
(viii) Chikkabovi and others vs. Sri. C.Y.Shivegowda and others- W.A.No. 1017/2021
(ix) Smt. Mangamma and others vs. The State of Karnataka and others - W.A.No.16/2021 (SC-ST)
(x) Sri. M.Muninarayana Swamy and another vs. State of Karnataka, rep. by its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development and others- ILR 2012 KAR 3428.
8. Sri. D.N.Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri Srihari, learned counsel for the
- 50 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 respondent No.1 refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that;
8.1 The agreement dated 01.02.1995 is a false and fabricated document brought up during the pendency of the present proceedings and that there has been no whisper about the same in the writ petitions. Referring to the contents of the photo copy of the agreement dated 01.02.1995 (which was produced along with a memo dated 08.08.2018/03.09.2021 by the petitioners) learned Senior counsel submitted that the said document has allegedly been executed only by Smt.Gangamma. However, there is no signature or thumb impression of the Said Smt.Gangamma on the said document. He submitted that the petitioners have not stated anything as to the existence or otherwise of the original of the said document and the same is not produced in the manner known to law.
- 51 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 As such he submits that it is not safe to rely upon the said document.
8.2 Referring to the affidavit dated 16.03.1995 produced by the petitioners along with the aforesaid memo, learned Senior counsel points out that even the said affidavit has not been attested by any notary and that there is no mention of any agreement much less agreement dated 01.02.1995 in the said affidavit. Thus, he submits that the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is a transfer of the subject land in terms of the said documents cannot be accepted.
8.3 That the power of attorney dated 16.03.1995 was executed only authorising the said Sri.D.A.Timmaiah to do and caused to be done certain acts and deeds on behalf of the legal representatives of the grantees and the same under any circumstances would not amount to
- 52 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 transfer of property in the eye of law. That the said power of attorney is also silent with regard to alleged agreement dated 01.02.1995 or with regard to payment of any consideration as claimed by the petitioners.
8.4 Since, the petitioners have not obtained any permission before executions of the deeds of sale as required under law, they cannot claim any right, title and interest in the subject land. That there is no change of land usage obtained as required under law and that mere payment of betterment charges and property tax would not amount to change of land usage or conversion of land.
8.5 That there is no delay of any nature whatsoever in initiating the proceedings by the respondent No.1. That the first transaction was on 09.12.1999 which is the deed of sale executed in favour of the one of the petitioners
- 53 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 and the application initiating the proceedings under KPTCL Act was filed during 2006. Thus, the respondent No.1 have set the law into motion within reasonable time.
8.6 That irrespective of nature of land and its present status the legal representatives of the grantees are entitled for restoration of land. That by a transfer letter dated 19.12.2011 (which is produced at Annexure-A to the writ petition in WP No.35808/2013) subject land has already been handed over to the legal representatives of the grantees subject to condition of the houses that are existing in an area of about 35 guntas.
8.7 Thus, he submits that the orders passed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have already been given effect to and the petitioners are not entitled for the relief sought for in the petition.
- 54 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 8.8 That the record reveal that the petitioners were issued and served with sufficient notice and that matter in appeal was heard by the Deputy Commissioner and the petitioners were afforded sufficient opportunity.
8.9 Learned Senior counsel relied upon the following judgments in support of his submissions:
(i) WP Nos. 37061-62/2002 and connected matters dated 08.01.2004 between S.Radha Krishna Setty and The Deputy commissioner, Chitradurga.
(ii) Bangalore City Corporative Housing Society Limited vs. State of Karnataka and others- (2012) 3 SCC 727
(iii) W.A.No.16/2020 dated 15.04.2021 between Sri.M. Suresh Kumar and The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru.
9. Petitioners have also filed I.A.No.1/2017 seeking to raise additional grounds and I.A.No.1/2022 seeking amendment of writ petition to incorporate additional paragraphs and additional grounds bringing on record the
- 55 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 averments with regard to documents filed along with memos referred above. These applications are rejected by separate orders. One Narayan, brother of respondent No.1 has filed application I.A.No.1/2012 which is rejected by separate order.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
10. There is no dispute that the subject land was granted in favour of Sri.Chikkanagappa and Sri.Muniyappa. It is submitted that said Sri. Muniyappa was the son of said Sri. Chikkanagapa. There is no dispute with regard to applicability of the provisions of the KPTCL Act. The contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners are;
i) that the said Chikkanagappa and Muniyappa had obtained permission to sell the subject land during the year 1988-89;
- 56 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018
ii) that the subject land is now within the limits of BBMP, as such it has lost its agriculture nature.
iii) all amenities having been provided by BBMP and BWSSB and BESCOM, in the nature of roads water, sewage and electricity connections/facilities and that the Property tax and betterment charges are being paid resulting in non-application of provision of KPTCL Act;
iv) that the legal representatives of said Muniyappa executed an agreement of sale on 01.02.1995 and also executed and registered a general power of attorney dated 16.03.1995 in favour of one Sri.D.A.Timmaiah, who in furtherance thereof had formed the layout and further sold the sites in favour of the petitioners;
v) that the initiation of proceedings by the legal representatives of grantees on 07.12.2006 was after expiry of about 12 years from the date of agreement of sale; as such, the proceedings are not within reasonable time as held by the Apex Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA.
- 57 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018
11. The aforesaid contentions have been seriously disputed by the counsel for respondent No.1. In view of that matter the question that arise for consideration in these petitions is;
"Whether there is violation of provisions of KPTCL Act by petitioners in purchasing the subject land and if so what is the consequence?
Regarding prior permission:
12. The petitioners have relied upon the letters dated 16.11.1988 purportedly submitted before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District by late Chikkanagappa and late Muniyappa being the grantees of subject land seeking permission to alienate the land which are produced as Annexures-G and H to the writ petition in W.P.No.23361/2011. It appears that in response to the said requisition the Deputy Commissioner
- 58 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 had directed the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk to submit his opinion along with enclosures on or before 09.11.1988. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner by his communication dated 18.03.1989 directed the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk to consider market value of the subject land at Rs.40,000/- per acre and to cause deposit of half of the said market value by the grantees to the Government in terms of Rule 9(1) of the Land Grant Rules and thereafter to obtain an undertaking from them to purchase alternate land in the remaining amount. Thus, the petitioners contend that the permission has been obtained by their vendors. In response to this along with the statement of objection the respondent No.1 has produced copies of proceedings before the Tahsildar which were initiated upon the requisition made by said Chikkanagappa and Muniyappa seeking permission to alienate the subject land. Perusal of the office notings of
- 59 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 the Tahsildar reveal that though the permission has been sought to alienate the subject land on the premise of purchasing alternate land, on an enquiry it was apparently found that said Chikkanagappa and Muniyappa intended to form a layout on the subject land and sell the sites and for this reason it was recommended not to grant permission to alienate the subject land and as such the matter was kept in abeyance and the said proceedings were closed on 07.02.1997 without grant of any permission. This aspect of the matter has not been disputed by the petitioners. Thus, it is clear that there has been no permission granted for alienation of the subject land.
13. It is appropriate at this juncture to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SATYAN VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS reported in
- 60 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 (2020) 14 SCC 210, wherein at paragraphs 26 to 34 has held as under;
"26. There is substance in the contention of the respondent-State that the appellant had throughout sought to make out a case based on prior permission by the competent authority. It was nobody's case that permission was not required to be obtained. At this stage of the civil appeal, without any pleadings being there, it is not even really open to the appellant to have pleaded the interpretation they so sought to plead. This really cannot be categorized as a legal plea alone, and that too raised at the fifth level of scrutiny in the hierarchy of proceedings. The appellant, really faced with a factual situation where the permissions do not exist, now sought to build another bridge to contend that be that as it may, no permission is required. Such a plea cannot be countenanced.
27. If we analyze the aforesaid plea also, we find no merit in the same. We cannot lose sight of the objective with which the said Act was enacted. The non-alienation clause existing in the said Rules, and incorporated in the grants, was found to be inadequate to protect the interests of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, who were given land owing to their ignorance and poverty. Influential and powerful sections of society were stated to be
- 61 -WP No. 23357 of 2011 C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018
obtaining sales and mortgages for consideration, and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes became victims of circumstances. The objective of the State Government in enacting the said Act was to prevent such misuse and, therefore, in categorical terms, transfer with permission was prescribed. This would be de hors the terms of the grant or the said Rules. Thus, whether it was a case where it was within the window of five (5) to fifteen (15) years, or the period beyond fifteen (15) years, such permission would be required.
28. No doubt Rule 9 of the said Rules, enacted under a different enactment, prior to the enactment of the said Act (and thereafter even amended), does contemplate transfer between the window of five (5) to fifteen (15) years on certain terms and conditions, which are required to be satisfied by the Deputy Commissioner. There is, in fact, a prohibition in grant of such permission until and unless there is satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner that the alienation is for the purpose of acquiring other land, or for improving the remaining land and that the grantee credits to Government an amount equal to fifty percent of the market value of such land as on the date of sanction of such alienation. Thus, more rigorous terms have been put for transfer within the window of five (5) to fifteen (15) years.
29. The reason for the competent authority to arrive at a decision whether to grant permission or not after
- 62 -WP No. 23357 of 2011 C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018
the period of fifteen (15) years may or may not be coloured by such considerations. But certainly, he may satisfy himself that the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes only, who have been allotted the land, are not taken for a ride, and it is possibly in their best interest for recorded reasons that such permission should be granted. The wordings of Section 4(2) of the said Act are quite clear in its terms.
30. Section 4 of the said Act, dealing with prohibition of transfer of granted land, in sub-section (1), begins with a non obstante clause. It is notwithstanding anything in any agreement, contract or instrument, or for that matter in any law. Section 11 of the said Act further enforces this by giving the said Act an overriding effect over any other law. The said Section 11 reads as under:
"11. Act to override other laws.- The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any custom, usage or contract or any decree or order of a Court, Tribunal or other Authority."
31. The aforesaid Section is applicable for grants made either before or after the commencement of the Act. The terms of the grant cannot be contravened, but the last part of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act makes any transfer in
- 63 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 violation of sub-section (2) also null and void. Sub- section (2) of Section 4 of the said Act is crisp and clear in its terms, putting an absolute ban on transfer after the commencement of the Act, without previous permission of the Government. Thus, a bare reading of the provision makes it abundantly clear that it brooks no two interpretations. After the period of fifteen (15) years also, thus, permission was required to be taken.
32. The legal position enunciated in various judicial pronouncements is also very clear in this behalf. The observations in Manchegowda & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 15 in para 24, cannot be taken out of context, as what would have to be scrutinized is 15 (supra) the proposition sought to be determined in that case. The validity of the Act had been challenged mainly because the provisions contained in Sections 4 and 5 of the Act purported to declare transfer of "granted land" made before or after the commencement of the Act, in contravention of the terms of the grant of such land or law, null and void. In para 14, what was urged before the Court has been set out, i.e., the challenge being to Section 4 insofar as it seeks to nullify the transfer effected before the Act came into force. In the conspectus of the aforesaid observations, para 24 has to be read.
33. The aforesaid aspect is really not in doubt, in view of the subsequent judicial pronouncements, more specifically in Dharma Naika v. Rama Naika &
- 64 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 Anr.16 The context of the observations made in Manchegowda v. State of Karnataka17 has been clearly enunciated. It is noted that the agreements for sale were executed before the commencement of the Act. The sale deed was executed afterwards. In that context it was observed that it could be safely concluded that provisions of Section 4(1) declared any transfer of land made either 16 (supra) 17 (supra) before or after the commencement of the said Act to be null and void if it contravened the conditions specified therein. Section 4(2) was held to make it abundantly clear that if the sale deed was executed and registered after the commencement of the said Act, and was without prior permission of the State Government, such transfer would be invalid and null and void. The scheme of the said Act was also discussed in detail with the objective with which it was enacted. Before parting with the judgment, this Court observed in para 27 that Manchegowda & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. 18 has to be read in the context of the limited scope, as enunciated in para 7 of that judgment. Nothing more is really left to be said after this judgment, though there are certain other judicial pronouncements referred to aforesaid, cited by learned counsel for the State. Suffice to say that a delay of eight (8) years by itself cannot come in the way of the competent authority taking the action, as limitation principles would not apply, as observed in Amrendra Pratap Singh v. Tej Bahadur Prajapati & Ors.19 The cases referred to by learned senior counsel for 18 (supra) 19 (supra) the
- 65 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 appellant involved huge gaps of around twenty (20) to thirty (30) years, which is not so in the present case.
34. The period of eight (8) years cannot be said to be such, as to amount to such delay and laches as would make the action void, considering that it is in respect of a beneficial legislation for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes community.
14. Thus, considering the documents produced by the petitioners in the nature of letters submitted by Chikkanagappa and Muniyappa seeking permission to sell the subject land and the communication issued by the Deputy Commissioner to the Tahsildar for compliance of Rule 9(1) of the Land Grant Rules and subsequent file notings in the records of the Tahsildar declining to grant permission as noted above, and in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court noted hereinabove, it is clear that the alienation, if any, was without compliance with the statutory requirement of obtaining prior permission.
- 66 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 Regarding Transfer of subject land and delay in initiating the proceedings:
15. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners relying upon documents namely; (a) copies of agreement dated 01.02.1995 purportedly entered into between Smt.Gangamma w/o Muniyappa and Sri.D.A.Timmaiah;
(b) an affidavit dated 31.12.1994 purportedly executed by Smt. Gangamma (c) another affidavit dated 16.03.1995 purportedly executed by wife and children of Muniyappa and (d) a registered general power of attorney 16.03.1995 executed by legal representatives of Muniyappa in favour of Sri.D.A.Timmaiah, submits that these documents prove and establish the factum of "transfer" of the subject land by the legal representatives of the grantees for valuable consideration. He refers to Section 3(1)(e) of the KPTCL Act wherein the term 'transfer' has been defined.
- 67 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018
16. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Narasamma (supra) wherein at paragraph 19 it has been held as under;
"19. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 defines a contract for sale. It states that a contract for sale of immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property takes place on terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest or charge on such property. Thus, contract for sale is only a document creating right to obtain another document of sale on fulfillment of terms and conditions specified therein. On the strength of such an agreement, a buyer does not become the owner of the property. The ownership remains with the seller. It will be transferred to the buyer only on the execution of sale deed by the seller. The buyer obtains only a right to get the sale deed executed in his favour. There is no bar for the parties to enter into an agreement to sell with or without delivery under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. It depends upon the terms and conditions settled between the parties. However, a contract for sale with or without delivery of possession of the property makes no difference for the purpose of Section 4(2) of the Act."
- 68 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 He also relied upon the judgment of this court in the case of B.M.HANUMANTHAPPA (supra) wherein at paragraph 4 this Court has held as under;
........ therefore, if there is a transaction by way of agreement of sale in the transaction has to be held illegal and in a such case Section 4(1) of the Act will very will be attracted." He further relies upon another judgment of this Court in the case of D.K. Abdul Kunhi (supra) wherein it is held that when the possession of granted land is passed on by the grantee in favour of some other person it will be included within the frame work of transaction, that is transfer.
17. Referring to aforesaid documents, provision of law and the judgments, learned senior counsel submits that the transfer/alienation of the subject land had indeed taken place as for back as on 01.02.1995 when the
- 69 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 agreement of sale was entered into and where as the proceedings initiated by the respondent No.1 before the respondent No.2 under the KPTCL Act was on 07.12.2006. Thus, he submits that, there is a delay of more than 11 years in initiating the proceedings and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232 the orders impugned require to be set aside.
18. The aforesaid documents relied upon by the petitioners have been disputed by the learned Senior counsel for the respondent contending; that the same has not been signed/ executed by Smt.Gangamma as there is no signature or thumb impression of the said Smt. Gangamma on the copies of the documents produced by the petitioners; that the same was not produced in the
- 70 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 manner known to law; that the affidavits have not been attested by the notary; that there was no whisper regarding existence of the said documents at the time of filing of the writ petition and the same has been produced for the first time along with a memo dated 18.08.2018/ 03.09.2021; and that there is no mention with regard to any such agreement or payment of consideration in the registered power of attorney. Therefore, he submits that there is no transfer within the meaning of Section 3(1)(e) of the KPTCL Act and as such question of delay in initiating the proceeding would not arise.
19. Section 3(1)(e) of the KPTCL Act defines the term transfer as under;
"Transfer" means a sale, gift, exchange, mortgage with or without possession), lease or any other transaction not being a partition among members of a family or a testamentary disposition and includes the creation of a charge
- 71 -WP No. 23357 of 2011 C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018
or an agreement to sell, exchange, mortgage or lease or enter into any other transaction.
20. A perusal of the copy of the agreement dated 01.02.1995 produced by the petitioners along with the memo dated 08.08.2018/03.09.2021 reveal that the said document appears to have been executed by Sri.D.A.Timmaiah in favour of Smt.Gangamma and her children (no names of the children mentioned therein). Though, the said document is titled as "Agreement of Sale", a reading of the same would not even remotely suggest that the same is an agreement executed by Smt.Gangamma and her children in favour of Sri.D.A.Timmaiah as claimed by the petitioners. The contents of the said document is extracted hereunder for immediate reference:
- 72 -WP No. 23357 of 2011 C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018
-:±ÀÄzÀÞ PÀæAiÀÄzÀ PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ:-
¸À£ï MAzÀÄ ¸Á«gÀzÀ §A¨ÉÊ£ÀÆgÀ vÉÆÛA¨sÀvÉÊzÀ£Éà E¸À« ¥sɧæªÀj ªÀiÁºÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: MAzÀgÀ®Æè (01-02-1995) ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-560 036, PÀȵÀÚgÁd¥ÀÄgÀ CAZÉ, zÁåªÀ¸ÀAzÀæ ªÀÄÄRå gÀ¸ÉÛ, ªÀÄ£É £ÀA.24 gÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÀ ¢ªÀÀAUÀvÀ ²æÃ. r.n. C¥ÀàtÚ£ÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ ²æà r.J. wªÀÄäAiÀÄå DzÀ £Á£ÀÄ:- ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-36, PÀȵÀÚgÁd¥ÀÄgÀ CAZÉ, aPÀ̧¸ÀªÀ£À¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÀ ¢ªÀÀAUÀvÀ ºÉƸÀPÆ É ÃmÉ ªÀÄĤAiÀÄ¥ÀàgÀªÀgÀ zsÀªÀÄð¥Àwß ²æêÀÄw UÀAUÀªÀÄä ºÁUÀÆ EªÀgÀ ªÀÄPÀ̽UÉ §gÉzÄÀ PÉÆlÖ µÉqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÀéwÛ£À PÀæªÀĪÉãÉAzÀgÉ :-
DzÁV ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ zÀQët vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, PÀȵÀÚgÁd¥ÀÄgÀA ºÉÆç½ aPÀ̧¸ÀªÀ£À¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.25gÀ°è 1-20 UÀÄAmÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.25gÀ°è 2-00 JPÀgÉ ªÀÄvÉÛ SÁvÉ £ÀA.60, 61 F JgÀqÀÄ SÁvÉAiÀÄ «¹ÛÃtð d«ÄãÀ£ÄÀ ß MlÄÖ 3-20 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀÄ RjâAiÀiÁV F ¢£ÁAPÀzÉÆAzÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðj ZÀ¯ÁªÀuÉ gÀÆ.4,00,000-00(£Á®ÄÌ ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ½UÉ) vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ ¸ÁQëUÀ¼À ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄzÀ°è EªÀwÛ£À ¢£À ªÀÄÄAUÀqÀ ºÀtªÁV gÀÆ.25,000-00 (E¥ÀàvÉÛöÊzÀÄ ¸Á«gÀ) gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß UÀAUÀªÀÄä ªÀÄPÀ̽UÉ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. F G½PÉ gÀÆ. 3,75,000-00 (ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ®PÀë J¥ÀàvÉÊzÀÄ) ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ:25.02.1995 gÀAzÀÄ 1,00,000-00 (MAzÀÄ ®PÀë) gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀÄUÉ PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛÃ£É E£ÀÄß½PÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:04.03.1995 gÀAzÀÄ ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ¸ÀzÁ M¦àPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. gÀÆ.75,000-000 (J¥ÀàvÉÛöÊzÀÄ ¸Á«gÀ) gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛãÉ. E£ÀÄß½PÉ PÀæAiÀÄzÀ gÀÆ.2,00,000-00 (JgÀqÀÄ ®PÀë) gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß 12 wAUÀ¼À M¼ÀUÀqÉ ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ F PÀgÁgÀÄ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¤ªÀÄUÉ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆlÄÖ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ ¸ÁQëUÀ¼À ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄzÀ°è ¤ªÀÄUÉ F PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥Àvæª À À£ÄÀ ß §gÉzÀÄPÉÆlÄÖ F PÀgÁjUÉ ¸À» ºÁQgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
-:µÉqÀÆå¯ï «ªÀgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ:-
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ zÀQët vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ PÀȵÀÚgÁd¥ÀÄgÀ ºÉÆç½, aPÀÌ §¸ÀªÀ£À¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.25 SÁvÁ £ÀA.61 «¹ÛÃtð 2-00 aPÀÌ£ÁUÀ¨ÉÆë AiÀĪÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°ègÀĪÀ ºÁUÀÆ EªÀgÀ ¸ÉÆ¸É ºÁUÀÆ ªÉƪÀÄäPÀ̼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EzÉà UÁæªÄÀ zÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.25 SÁvÉ £ÀA.60 «¹ÛÃtð 1-20 «¹ÛÃtð d«ÄäUÉ ZÉPÀÄ̧A¢:- F µÉqÀÆå¯ï£À 3-20 UÀÄAmÉ «¹ÛÃtðzÀ F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¸ÀéwÛ£À §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà vÀAmÉ vÀPÁgÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ §AzÀgÉ r.J. wªÀÄäAiÀÄå DzÀ £Á£Éà §UɺÀj¹PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛÃ£É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£ßÀ Rað¤AzÀ §UɺÀj¹PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
- 73 -WP No. 23357 of 2011 C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018
1£Éà ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.25 SÁvÉ £ÀA.60 ºÉƸÀPÉÆÃmÉ ªÀÄĤAiÀÄ¥Àà PÉÆÃA ²æêÀÄw UÀAUÀªÄÀ ä EªÀgÀ «¹ÛÃtð 1-20 UÀÄAmÉ EzÀPÉÌ ZÉPÀÄ̧A¢:-
¥ÀƪÀðPÉÌ : ZËqÀªÀÄä£ÀªÀgÀ d«ÄãÀÄ
¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ : aPÀÌzÁåªÀ¸ÀAzÀæzÀ UÀr
GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ : JA. ªÉAPÀl¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ d«ÄãÀÄ
zÀQëtPÉÌ : qÁ. ±ÀªÀiÁð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀÆd¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ d«ÄãÀÄ.
2£Éà ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA. 25 SÁvÉ. 61 aPÀÌ£ÁUÀ¨ÉÆë ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄzÁgÀgÁzÀ ¸ÉÆ¸É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉƪÀÄäPÀ̼ÀÄ EªÀgÀ «¹ÛÃtð 2-00 EzÀPÉÌ ZÉPÀÄ̧A¢:-
¥ÀƪÀðPÉÌ : JA. £ÁgÁAiÀÄt¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄĤAiÀÄ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ d«ÄãÀÄ ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ : aPÀÌzÁåªÀ¸ÀAzÀæ UÀr GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ : «ÄãÁPÀªÀÄä£ÀªÀgÀ d«ÄãÀÄ zÀQëtPÉÌ : JA. ªÉAPÀl¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ d«ÄãÀÄ.
F PɼÀPÀAqÀ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀ ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ M¦àPÉÆAqÀÄ F PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæPÉÌ ¸À» ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
¸ÁQëUÀ¼ÀÄ: PÀgÁgÀÄ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆlÖªÀgÀ ¸À»/-
PÀgÁgÀÄ §gɹPÉÆAqÀªÀgÀ ¸À»/-
21. Thus, a perusal of the said document reveal that the same is written/executed by Sri.D.A.Thimmaiah. It is
- 74 -WP No. 23357 of 2011 C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018
in the nature of a statement/declaration made by Sri.D.A.Timmaiah wherein he states that he has agreed to purchase total extent of 3 acres 20 guntas for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and had paid Rs.25,000/- in the presence of witnesses to Smt.Gangamma and children. That out of balance of Rs.3,75,000/- he would pay Rs.1,00,000/- on 25.02.1995 and Rs.75,000/- on 04.03.1995 and remaining Rs.2,00,000/- within twelve months. Thus, said document is not an agreement of sale. That apart copy of the said document as produced does not bear signature or thumb impression either of Smt.Gangamma or of her children. It also does not refer to delivery of possession of the granted land. Thus, at the outset the said document does not appear to be an "Agreement of Sale" as claimed by the petitioners.
- 75 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018
22. As regards the affidavits produced as Documents 2 and 3 along with a aforesaid memo dated 08.08.2018/03.09.2021, it is seen that affidavit dated 16.03.1995 is purportedly executed by the wife and children of Muniyappa. However, the copy of the said affidavit as produced does not bear attestation or notarization. There is also no reference to the agreement dated 01.02.1995 or as to payment of any consideration as claimed in the said affidavit. That none of the signatures /thumb impression found on the copy of said affidavit dated 16.03.1995 are found on the aforesaid agreement dated 01.02.1995.
23. Similarly affidavit dated 31.12.1994 produced as document No.3 to the aforesaid memo apparently sworn to by Smt.Gangamma to the effect that she is residing in the address shown in the affidavit; that father
- 76 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 of her husband Sri.Chikkanagabhovi was granted an extent of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.25 while her husband late Hosakote Sri.Muniyappa was granted 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy.No.25 and her husband was the only son to his father; that Chikkanagabhovi passed away on 06.01.1990 and her husband passed away on 16.02.1991; that the aforesaid property of her husband and father-in-law has been succeeded by her and her children and the khata has been transferred in their name.
24. Thus, even a conjoint reading of the aforesaid three documents, would not under any circumstances lead to an inference of transfer of subject land as claimed by the petitioners.
25. As regards the registered power of attorney dated 16.03.1995 executed by the wife and children of Muniyappa in favour of Sri.D.A.Thimmaiah, is merely a
- 77 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 document appointing/constituting him as their attorney and agent to do certain acts and deeds. There is no reference in the said registered power of attorney with regard to any sale or payment of sale consideration or even delivery of possession of subject land in furtherance to any such agreement of sale. Even the said document which is heavily relied upon by the petitioners to contend that the same amounted to transfer falls shy of the requirement of the definition of the term "Transfer".
26. The Division Bench of this court in its Judgment dated 15.04.2021 passed in W.P.No.16/2020 in the case of M.SURESH KUMAR AND OTHERS VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS, relying upon the decision in the case of K.N.Ramegowda (dead by LRs) Vs Assistant Commissioner and others reported in 1994 (5) KLJ 468 and R.H.Ramakrishna Vs Deputy
- 78 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 Commissioner, Shimoga reported in 2000 (2) JSN 21 has held that, when the possession of land in question has not been handed over under an agreement of sale, the transaction in question would not amount to transfer within the meaning of KPTCL Act. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid position of law, even if the purported agreement dated 01.02.1995 relied upon by the petitioners is to be considered as an agreement of sale the same does not amount to "Transfer" within the meaning of definition of term "Transfer" under KPTCL Act. The reliance placed by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners on the judgments referred to hereinabove to support his contention of transaction being "Transfer", in the fact situation of the matter, are of no avail.
27. Since the petitioners have not been able to even prima facie establish that there was a transfer of subject
- 79 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 land as on 01.02.1995 as claimed by them, the question of consideration of issue of delay in initiating the proceedings under the KPTCL Act reckoning the date from 01.02.1995 does not arise.
28. Admittedly, deeds of sale have been executed by the aforesaid Sri.D.A.Thimmaiah acting as a power of attorney holder of the legal representatives of the grantees on and from the year 1999 onwards. Respondent No.1 being the legal representative of original grantee Muniyappa initiated proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner under KPTCL Act seeking restoration of land and annulment of deeds of sale on 07.12.2006 which is within about six years from the date of execution of deeds of sale. The said period cannot be construed as a period of unreasonable delay. Therefore, the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
- 80 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI (supra) relied upon by the petitioners is not applicable to hold that the initiation of proceedings under the KPTCL Act under the facts and circumstances of the instant case is one of unreasonable delay.
Subject land having lost its agriculture nature:
29. The other contention raised by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners is that the subject land has lost its agricultural nature in view of development of the same into a layout with all amenities and construction of houses thereon. Therefore, he submits that once the land looses its agricultural nature/character the provisions of KPTCL Act are not applicable. He relies upon the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of J.M.Narayana and others (supra) and Judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sri.Munniah and others (supra) to
- 81 -WP No. 23357 of 2011 C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018
contend that in view of the law laid down in these judgments the provisions of KPTCL are not applicable. The said submission cannot be countenanced as the Judgment in the case of J.M.Narayana and others (supra) was rendered while considering provisions of Section 110 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 for determination of market value of the property for the purpose of payment of property tax and the same is therefore not applicable to the facts of the instant case.
30. As regards the Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Munniah and others supra, wherein it was held that once the land is diverted the same seizes to be granted land under the provisions of KPTCL Act and requirement to obtain permission under Section 4(2) of the Act would not arise as the permission required to be obtained is only in respect of granted land and not in
- 82 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 respect of converted land. The aforesaid Judgment of this Court is also of no avail as it is not the case of the petitioners that the land has been converted from agriculture to non-agricultural purpose in a manner known to law. Even according to the petitioners Chikkanagappa and Muniyappa during their life time had applied seeking permission to alienate the land and a communication in this regard as already noted above, had been issued by the Deputy Commissioner to the Tahsildar to obtain an undertaking from the grantees to deposit 50% of the market value and to buy alternate land in the remaining 50% of the market value in terms of Rule 9 (1) of the Land Grant Rules. That the said proceedings were dropped as there was no compliance of the said condition and also for the reasons noted by the Tahsildar that the grantees indeed wanted permission to sell the subject land by forming sites therein which was impermissible.
- 83 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018
31. In that view of the matter, the contention raised by learned Senior counsel for the petitioners that there is a deemed conversion of the land in view of the development and payment of betterment charges, property tax, requiring no further permission from the authorities cannot be accepted.
Regarding petitioners not having been provided opportunity of hearing:
32. Though it is claimed that the notice of the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner was not served, the records reveal that paper publication was issued. In any event the petitioners had filed appeal under Section 5 of the KPTCL Act before the Deputy Commissioner raising all possible grounds therein. It is also contended that the Deputy Commissioner decided the
- 84 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 appeal in the absence of petitioners without hearing them and that the Deputy Commissioner ought to have dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution instead of deciding the matter on merits. Though the said submission on the face of it appears to be tenable it is necessary to note that considering the long pendency of these petitions this Court upon the requisition and with the consent of learned Senior counsel for the parties had directed for inspection and survey of the subject property through Additional Director of Land Records who has filed the report as noted infra. That apart matter was also referred to mediation to explore the possibility of settlement, if any. All possible grounds urged and intended to be urged (as additional grounds) along with copies of the documents produced with memo dated 08.08.2018/03.09.2021 have also been taken into consideration. In the peculiar fact situation of the matter
- 85 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 this Court is of considered view that it may not be appropriate for remanding the matter on the ground of Deputy Commissioner deciding the matter on merits in the absence of the petitioners. No fruitful purpose will be served in reversing the order on the said ground. Hence, these writ petitions were taken up for final disposal. CONCLUSION:
33. As noted above the petitioners have not been able to establish that late Chikkanagappa and Muniyappa the original grantees had obtained any permission from the concerned authorities as contemplated under the provisions of KPTCL Act to alienate the granted land. The petitioners have also not been able to establish that there was a transfer of subject land within the meaning of Section 3(1)(e) of the KPTCL Act based on the purported agreement dated 01.02.1995 and the affidavits and the
- 86 -WP No. 23357 of 2011 C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018
power of attorney dated 16.03.1995 as such there was any delay in initiating the proceeding. On appreciation of these aspects of the matter, this court is of the considered view that the fact situation of the matter as dealt with hereinabove would establish contraventions of provisions of KPTCL Act. Hence, no grounds are made out to allow the petitions. No illegalities can be attributed to the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. Consequently prayers as sought for in the aforesaid writ petitions are rejected. Consequences:
34. This brings to a point for consideration of consequences of the aforesaid transaction in violation of KPTCL Act. Considering the submissions and the admitted positions that the subject land has been developed into a layout by formation of sites, roads and providing amenities
- 87 -WP No. 23357 of 2011 C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018
such as electricity, water and sewerage connections to the houses that have been built thereon and also considering the submission that by a letter of transfer dated 19.12.2011 physical possession of the subject land measuring 3 acres 20 guntas had been handed over to the legal representatives of original grantees with a condition regarding existence of 31 houses on an area of about 35 guntas of land out of the said 3 acres 20 guntas, this Court in order to ascertain the actual and factual position, by order dated 03.11.2022 had directed Sri.Venkata Sathyanarayana, Learned HCGP to cause inspection/survey of the subject property through Additional Director of Land Records in the presence of the petitioners and the respondents at 11.00 a.m. on 05.11.2022. A report dated 10.11.2022 along with 10 documents including photographs in this regard has been filed which reveal that a layout has been formed on the
- 88 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 subject land consisting of various sites and about 32 houses have been constructed on the sites formed in the said layout and about 23 sites are shown to be still vacant. Photographs produced along with the report also reveal fully developed roads and buildings with all civic amenities existing on the subject property. Thus, there is no dispute with regard to the present status of the land being one fully developed into a residential layout.
35. Learned Senior counsel for the respondent No.1 relied upon the Judgment of this Court dated 08.01.2004 passed in W.P.No.37061-62/2002 (SC/ST) connected with W.P.Nos.37058-60, 37651-53, 37725-28, 37730-32/2002, 2164-86 and 2144-62 and 7884/2003, wherein this Court dealing with identical fact situation, for the reasons assigned at paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the said judgment has passed an order and it is relevant to extract the said
- 89 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 paragraphs and the order passed therein which is as under:
"6. This Court after hearing the learned counsel on behalf of the parties perused the original records pertaining to the proceedings initiated by the original Authority, the various additional documents referred to supra produced by the petitioners and affidavits of the parties in justification of their claim that the impugned orders are perused by this Court, this court also heard the learned counsel on merits of the case keeping in view the law laid down in Gujarath Steel Tubes case at paragraph 79 referred to supra, upon which the learned counsel for respondents have rightly placed reliance and also in view of the fact that the proceedings are pending before the Authorities for number of years and keeping in view the observations made by the Apex Court in MANCHE GOWDA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in AIR 1984 SC 1151, after considering the contentions urged on merits, this court is of the firm view that the findings and reasons recorded on the contentious points by both the Authorities after contest by the original purchaser of the land in question this court is of the view that the impugned orders cannot be quashed as the same are in conformity with the provisions of the Act and law laid down in this regard in catena of cases both by the Apex Court and this Court referred to supra.
7. Therefore the rights of the legal representatives of the grantee under the PTCL Act cannot be deprived by this Court by interfering with the impugned orders. At the same time, the petitioners being bona fide purchasers of the sites, and some of them have invested sums for constructions of buildings, hence their interest also cannot be ignored. Ends of Justice and equity have to be balanced between the parties by this Court exercising this Courts discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction having
- 90 -WP No. 23357 of 2011 C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018
regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases as referred to supra namely the formation of layout and sale of sites by the subsequent purchasers no doubt their conversion of land formation of layout, construction of buildings are contrary to the provisions of the Section 4 and 11 of the PTCL Act still this Court feels that justice has to be done keeping in view the equity and rights of the parties by giving the following directions to the original Authority. The purchasers of the sites in the land in question have to be asked to pay the present market value of the sites to the legal representatives of the original grantee. At the same time, the petitioners are at liberty to recover the amount paid to their vendor towards the sites in question in accordance with law by initiating appropriate proceedings.
8. For the reasons stated above, these writ petitions are dismissed subject to the following directions and observations:-
i) The Asst. Commissioner of the Sub-Division, the original Authority herein shall determine the present market value of the land in question taking into consideration the value fixed by the Revenue Department in the Notification under the provisions of Karnataka Stamp Act for the purpose of registration of the sale deeds in respect of the sale of the Immovable properties in the State of Karnataka within two months for the purpose of payment of sital value by the purchasers to the legal representatives of the original grantees as they are entitled for restoration of the properties in question as this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders but with the modifications made in this order.
ii) The value of the sites shall be paid by the petitioners to the legal representatives of the grantee and obtain necessary proof and receipts for acknowledgment of the same. Only on such payment, the sites purchased by them would be valid.
- 91 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018
iii) If the petitioners fail to pay the value of the sites, the Asst. Commissioner shall resume the sites and restore the same to the beneficiaries under the Act.
iv) Until compliance of this order, no further constructions, developments and agricultural operations shall be carried on by anybody except those which are already in existence.
v) If any one of either the petitioners or in the name of their family members already owning or possessing either house or sites in the town/village where the sites are situated, are not entitled to the benefit of this order. They are at liberty to recover the amount paid to their vendor.
9. For the reasons stated above, the writ petitions are dismissed with the above directions and observations and modifying the order of the original Authority."
36. Learned Senior counsel for respondent No.1 also relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bangalore City Co-operative Society Ltd., (supra) wherein while examining the validity or otherwise of a housing scheme and consequent acquisition of land for public purposes held that the agreement between the appellant society and the State Government was in violation of Section 23 of the Contract Act, and while
- 92 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 setting aside the acquisition, liberty was reserved to some of the members of the appellant society who may have built their houses on the sites allotted to them, to negotiate with the respondents to purchase their respective lands at the prevailing market price.
37. Relying upon the aforesaid two judgments, learned Senior counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that, considering the fact of petitioners constructing houses on their respective sites purchased by them through the power of attorney holder of the legal representatives of grantees and also considering the fact that no sale consideration was passed on by the said power of attorney to the legal representatives of grantees, the respondent No.1 and the other legal representatives of the grantees would consider receiving the sale consideration at the prevailing market rate from the
- 93 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 petitioners to the extent of site purchased by the petitioners.
38. In response to the aforesaid submissions, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners would be put to extreme hardship if they are made to pay the present market value of the property purchased by them. He however submitted that the market value as prevailed at the time of execution of the sale deed may be taken into consideration for the said purpose. In furtherance to the above, submissions were made that the parties be referred to mediation to explore the possibility of settlement if any. Upon the joint submissions of the learned Senior Counsel, matter was referred to mediation by order dated 23.11.2022 to explore the possibilities of amicable resolution of the matters. However, despite the efforts of the learned
- 94 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 Mediator parties could not resolve and the matter was referred back to the court.
39. Since the parties could not arrive at amicable resolution of the matter, further submissions were made with regard to the market value of the subject land. Learned Senior counsel for petitioners also submitted a memo dated 07.12.2022 along with copies of notifications issued by the concerned Sub-Registrar, K.R.Puram, Bengaluru between the years 1989-90 and 2021-2022. In fact Sri.Kalyan learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a deed of sale dated 09.06.2006 produced along with a memo dated 09.11.2022 and contends that the purchaser therein is none other than B.M.Narayana one of the legal representatives of the grantee Sri.Muniyappa and as such, the sale consideration mentioned therein may be taken as the basis and that would be justified.
- 95 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018
40. It is necessary to note yet again that in terms of letter of transfer dated 19.12.2011 (produced as Annexure-A to the writ petition in W.P.No.35808/2013) the legal representatives of the grantees have already been handed over portion of subject land with a condition that such handing over is subject to existence of 31 houses in an area of 35 guntas of land out of 3 acres 20 guntas of subject land. This court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the gullible purchasers namely petitioners have invested their hard earned money and built a shelter over their heads. Though they ought to have taken care of compliance of the legal requirement before purchasing the subject property, they cannot be solely held responsible in view of the changed circumstances and developed location of the property. At the same time interest of the legal representatives of the grantees who have been apparently deprived of their land also needs to
- 96 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 be kept in mind. In view of this fact situation of the matter, in order to balance the equities, this Court is of the considered view that the course adopted by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment dated 08.01.2004 passed in W.P.Nos.37061-62/2002 (SC/ST) and connected matters be adopted in this case as well.
41. Accordingly, for the reasons referred to hereinabove, these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:
i) The Assistant Commissioner being the original authority shall determine the market value of the subject land after arriving at average value by taking into consideration the value fixed by the Revenue Department in its Notifications issued for the years between 1999-2000 and 2021-2022 under the provisions of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957
- 97 -WP No. 23357 of 2011 C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018
for the purpose of registration of deeds of sale in respect of immovable properties in the State of Karnataka, within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, for the purpose of payment of value of sites purchased by the petitioners to the legal representatives of the original grantees as they are entitled for restoration of subject land.
ii) The value of the sites so determined shall be paid by the petitioners to the legal representatives of the grantees and obtain receipt, acknowledgement and or confirmation for the same in accordance with law in order to validate their deeds of sale.
iii) If the petitioners fail to pay the value of sites so determined, the Assistant Commissioner shall resume their sites formed in the subject land and restore the same to the legal representatives of the grantees.
iv) It is made clear that the aforesaid option/ liberty is given only in respect of the
- 98 -
WP No. 23357 of 2011C/W WP No. 23358 of 2011 WP No. 23359 of 2011 WP No. 23360 of 2011 WP No. 23361 of 2011 WP No. 23363 of 2011 WP No. 23364 of 2011 WP No. 23365 of 2011 WP No. 25476 of 2011 WP No. 35808 of 2013 WP No. 35861 of 2018 petitioners who are before this Court and in respect of their properties subject matter of these petitions.
v) The order dated 26.03.2009 passed by the Assistant Commissioner is modified to the said extent.
In the circumstances, no order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE SBN/RU