Karnataka High Court
Smt Jayamma W/O Kenchappa vs The Assistant Commissioner on 25 July, 2012
Bench: Chief Justice, Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.VIKRAMAJIT SEN, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.3914/2009(SC/ST)
BETWEEN
SMT.JAYAMMA W/O KENCHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/O HANUMASAGAR VILLAGE
HONNALI TALUK
DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577217
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADV.,)
AND
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DAVANGERE SUB-DIVISION
DAVANGERE
2. SMT.SHARADAMMA
W/O LATE GURUPADAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
3. SRI PAVITHRANANDABABU
S/O LATE GURUPADAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
4. SRI H.P.GANGADHARA
S/O LATE GURUPADAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
2
R-3 & 4 ARE R/O SAHUKARA HUNDI
VILLAGE, ILAVALA HOBLI
MYSORE TALUK & DISTRICT
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.VEERAPPA, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI B.RUDRAGOWDA, ADV., FOR R-2 TO 4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION
NO.28996/2009 DATED 09.10.2009.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Vikramajit Sen, CJ (Oral) This Appeal assails the order dated 09.10.2009 of the learned Single Judge rejecting the Writ Petition filed before him. In doing so, reliance was placed on the decision of the Full Bench in Mohammed Jaffar vs State of Karnataka 2003(1) Kar.L.J. 337.
2. The contention of learned counsel for the Appellant is that the ratio of the Full Bench is not applicable to the present case since the Full Bench was seized of a situation where the vesting of land took place under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, and in the present case, it is the Inams Abolition Act, 1954 which is attracted. So far as decision of the Full Bench is 3 concerned, a careful perusal will disclose that the rationale was that vesting of rights was predicated on the prior occupation of the parties which got perfected on the coming into effect of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. This was a pre-existing right, all be it of a different nature. For the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PTCL Act' for the sake of brevity) to apply, there must be a Grant of land made in favour of a person belonging to Schedule Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. We are in no manner of doubt that the same rationale will apply where a person was already in occupation of inam lands. The lands in both the cases come to vest with the State, which in turn recognises the rights of persons already in occupation. For the provisions of PTCL Act to get attracted, there must be a Grant by the State of land in regard of which the Grantee had obviously did not have a previous interest or right. The rationale of the Full Bench therefore apply on all fours even to lands which were taken over by the State consequent upon the Abolition of Inams Act and thereafter vested in the persons who were in occupation of those lands. There may be instances where inam lands had been assumed by the 4 State and thereafter have been the subject matter of Grants to third parties, who were not in any manner connected with the lands. If such third parties belong to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community, and the purpose of the Grant was akin to other Saguvali Chit holders, then PTCL Act would apply. The PTCL Act does not apply to each and every land owned by Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe member, but only to those who have been granted lands by the State which were owned by the State/Authority. It is for this reason that the phrase 'abolition of inams' is to be found in Section 3(b) of the PTCL Act.
3. In the case in hand, the learned Single Judge has noted and it has not been disputed before us that the lands were regranted in favour of the predecessors in title of the Petitioner/Appellant. In other words, previous possession was noted and an order was made conferring occupancy rights under Section 5 of the Inams Abolition Act. Our attention has also been drawn to the decision in M.Munikenchappa vs The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore 2004(3) Kar.L.J. 579 in which the learned Single Judge has gone into great detail. We affirm the correctness of this decision. We have also perused the order dated 5 19.11.2007 passed by another Single Judge in Writ Petition No.27134/2001(SC/ST) which related to the parties before us in which the matter was remanded back to the concerned Authority for deciding in accordance with the Full Bench decision in Mohammed Jaffar. That decision is also affirmed by us. In these circumstances, the Appeal is without merit and is dismissed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE bkv