Karnataka High Court
Sri B Shivalingaiah vs Smt Nanjamma on 19 September, 2022
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: Alok Aradhe
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A. NO.339 OF 2022 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
SRI. B. SHIVALINGAIAH
S/O LATE BORAIAH
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/AT. THORESTTAHALLI VILLAGE
MADDUR TALUK , MANDYA DISTRICT. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI SWAMY N.B.N, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SMT. NANJAMMA
W/O LATE RAJU
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS.
2. SRI SHIVALINGAIAH
S/O LATE RAJU
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
3. SRI. PRAKASH
S/O LATE RAJU
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT.
THORESTTAHALLI VILLAGE
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT.
2
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDINGS
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANDYA DISTRICT
MANDYA - 571 401.
6. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MANDYA SUB DIVISION
MANDYA - 571 401. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI Y.K. NARAYANA SHARMA, ADV., FOR R-1 TO R-3
SRI S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R-4 TO R-6)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
ON 25/02/2022 IN WP NO.12748/2011 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTIALLY RESTORE THE ORDERS PASSED
ON 28/09/2010 ANNEXURE-E OF WP BY THE RESPONDENT NO.5,
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA AS WELL
AS THE ORDER PASSED ON ORDER ON 20/03/2009 IN
PTCL.NO.1/2002-03 ANNEXURE-D OF WP BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.6, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MANDYA SUB-DIVISION,
MANDYA AND PASS SUCH FURTHER ORDER OR ORDERS.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 25.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.12748/2011.
3
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.
3. Facts leading to filing of this appeal are, land bearing Sy. No.21 measuring 1 acre 5 guntas was granted on temporary lease in favour of the father of the appellant herein under the Grow More Food Scheme on 18.02.1946 and a temporary saguvali chit was issued to him. On 30.07.1966, 35 guntas of land in Sy. No.21 was sold by the appellant's father and the remaining 10 guntas of land was sold by him under a registered sale deed dated 10.10.1967. In the year 1981, an application was filed by the appellant herein under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'PTCL Act'), for resumption of the lands which were sold under the sale deeds dated 30.07.1966 and 10.10.1967. The said application was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner and confirmed in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent nos.1 to 3 herein had filed W.P.No.23280/1991 which was remanded by this Court for fresh disposal. On remand, the 4 Assistant Commissioner dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 5 of the PTCL Act and as against the said order, an appeal was filed by the appellant before the Deputy Commissioner who allowed the said appeal on 21.06.2002 and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh disposal. The Assistant Commissioner, thereafter, passed the order dated 20.03.2009 allowing the application filed by the appellant herein under Section 5 of the PTCL Act and the said order was challenged in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner by respondent nos.1 to 3 herein who had confirmed the said order and as against the same, W.P.No.12748/2011 was filed by respondent nos.1 to 3 herein which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant who was respondent no.4 in the writ petition has preferred this intra court appeal.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the land in question was granted to the father of the appellant who undisputedly belongs to Scheduled Caste, and therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in allowing the writ 5 petition. He submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider that the principles laid down in the judgment in the case of PEDDA REDDY VS STATE OF KARNATAKA1 had not been considered by the authorities, and therefore, he ought to have remanded the matter for consideration of the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act in view of the law laid down by this Court in Pedda Reddy's case supra.
5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents have argued in support of the impugned order and have prayed to dismiss the appeal.
6. The material on record would go to show that the land in question was granted to the appellant's father under the Grow More Food Scheme on 18.02.1946 and only a temporary saguvali chit was therefore issued to him. For the purpose of attracting the provisions of the PTCL Act, the land in question is required to be a 'granted land' within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the PTCL Act.
7. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of MUNIRAJU & ORS VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS in 1 ILR 1993 KAR 551 6 W.A.Nos.4121-4134/2013 disposed of on 18.03.2015, has observed as under:
"When the land is taken under 'Grow More Food Scheme', the lessee is not required to pay rent or lease for the first year and he was required to pay half of the assessment of the land for the subsequent years. In the circumstances, we are of the view that if the land was granted to Marappa on lease under 'Grow More Food Scheme' and thereafter it is confirmed to him, it cannot be considered as a land granted to him considering him as Scheduled Caste or a depressed person."
8. Applying the principles laid down in the said judgment, a similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of V.N.BABU REDDY & ANOTHER VS SMT. VENKATAMMA & OTHERS in W.P.No.37475/2011 and connected matters disposed of on 08.12.2017.
9. The learned Single Judge placing reliance on the aforesaid two judgments has held that since the land in question is not a granted land within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the PTCL Act, the orders passed by the Assistant 7 Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner are contrary to the law laid down in Muniraju's case and V.N.Babu Reddy's case supra, and accordingly has allowed the writ petition.
10. We find no illegality or irregularity in the said order and the same does not call for interference by this Court. Accordingly, we decline to entertain this writ appeal and the same is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE KK