Karnataka High Court
Sri Venkataramanappa vs State Of Karnataka on 25 November, 2022
Bench: Alok Aradhe, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A.No.1108/2021 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
SRI VENKATARAMANAPPA
S/O LATE CHITHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/O LALBAGH DASARAHALLI
VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI
HOSKOTE TALUK - 562 114
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI A. MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIIONER
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
BANGALORE - 560 001.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
HOSAKOTE TALUK
HOSAKOTE - 562 114.
2
5. SMT. MUNIYAMMA
W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.
6. SRI ANJINAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
7. SRI MANJUNATH
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS 5 TO 7 ARE
R/AT GOTTIPURA VILLAGE
JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI
HOSAKOTE TALUK - 562 114
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
8. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA
D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
W/O ANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT NARASAPURA VILLAGE
VENKAGAL VILLAGE
KOLAR DISTRICT
PIN - 563 101. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI LAXMI NARAYANA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-4;
SRI G.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SMT. APEKSHA D, ADV., FOR R-5 TO R-8)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO.
22954/2019, DATED 19.08.2021, ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL
WITH COSTS AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON
BLE COURT, MAY DEEM FIT TO GRANT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal is filed by the unsuccessful petitioner challenging the order dated 19.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.22954/2019.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the records that may be necessary for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are, land bearing Sy. No.50 of Gottipura village, Jadigenahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk (hereinafter referred to as 'the land in question') was granted in favour of one Muniyappa on 26.07.1982, who is the husband of respondent no.5 and father of respondent nos.6 to 8. The said land was purchased by the appellant under a registered sale deed from respondent no.6 herein on 04.09.2001. An application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'PTCL Act') was made by respondent nos.5 to 8 before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2006 and considering the same, the Assistant 4 Commissioner had annulled the sale made in favour of the appellant on the ground that the said sale was in violation of Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, and accordingly, ordered for restoration of the land in question in favour of the legal heirs of the grantee. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant had filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner contending that the Government had accorded permission under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act and produced the communication dated 29.12.1997 vide Annexure-J before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner, having found that the said document was not a genuine document, refused to place reliance on the same and had dismissed the appeal on 09.05.2019. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant herein had filed W.P.No.22954/2019 before this Court which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide the order impugned, and it is under these circumstances, the appellant is before this Court.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Government has granted permission under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, and the same is evident from the 5 communication - Annexure-J dated 29.12.1997. He submits that though the sale was made in the year 2001, the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act has been filed in the year 2006, and therefore, there is a delay of five years which is unexplained. He also submits that in the suit which was filed by respondent no.8, the property in question has been described as ancestral property and not as a granted property, and therefore, the land in question cannot be considered as a granted land. He also submits that the appellant is in possession of the land in question and he has developed and cultivated the land, and therefore, before taking possession of the land, the Tahsildar is required to comply with the requirement of Rule 3(6) of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Rules, 1979 (for short, 'the Rules'). In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SANTOSHKUMAR SHIVGONDA PATIL & OTHERS VS BALASAHEB TUKARAM SHEVALE & OTHERS - (2009)9 SCC 352, and BHEEMAIAH & JAVARAYYA VS ASSISTANT 6 COMMISSIONER, SHIMOGA & OTHERS - 1999(3) KCCR 2277.
5. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent nos.5 to 8 submits that admittedly the sale has taken place after the PTCL Act coming into force, and therefore, without the permission of the competent authority, the sale of granted land cannot be made. He submits that the document at Annexure-J is a concocted document and the same is evident from the endorsement dated 14.09.2016 at Annexure-R1, wherein it is stated that there is no record to show that permission as per Annexure-J was accorded for sale of the land in question. He also submits that the learned Single Judge who had secured the original records has recorded a finding that the file number quoted in the communication dated 29.12.1997 vide Annexure-J pertains to O.S.No.307/1997 which has got nothing to do with the land in question. He also submits that the application has been filed for resumption within a reasonable period, and therefore, the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate who was directed to get instructions with regard to the genuineness of the document - Annexure-J dated 29.12.1997, after obtaining instructions, has submitted that no permission has been granted by the State Government under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act for sale of the land in question and he also submits that Annexure-J is not a genuine document.
7. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments addressed and also perused the material available on record.
8. The appellant has purchased the land in question from respondent no.6 vide registered sale deed dated 04.09.2001. After coming into force of the PTCL Act, without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority, the granted land cannot be sold. The application seeking resumption of the land in question on the ground that the sale made in favour of the appellant was in violation of Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, was filed by the legal representatives of the original grantee in the year 2006. Though the learned Counsel for the appellant 8 has stated that the competent authority had granted permission for sale of the land in question which is evident from the communication at Annexure-J, the learned Single Judge, after perusing the original records, has recorded a categorical finding that the file number quoted in the communication dated 29.12.1997 vide Annexure-J pertains to O.S.No.307/1997 and it has nothing to do with the permission under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act in relation to the land in question. The Additional Government Advocate after obtaining instructions has submitted that Annexure-J is not a genuine document and no permission has been granted by the competent authority for sale of the land in question as required under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act. The Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-R1 dated 14.09.2016 has issued an endorsement stating that no prior approval was given by the Government for sale of the land in question. Under the circumstances, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the State Government had issued prior permission for sale of the land in question, and therefore, the sale is not 9 hit by Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act is liable to be rejected.
9. In so far as the contention of the appellant that the application filed by the legal heirs of the original grantee under Section 5 of the PTCL Act could not have been acted upon by the competent authority since the same has been filed belatedly after a period of five years is liable to be rejected in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SATHYAN VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & OTHERS - (2020)14 SCC 210, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that delay of eight years in filing the application for resumption cannot be said to be beyond a reasonable period. Therefore, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil's case on which reliance has been placed by the appellant cannot be of any aid to the appellant's case and the same cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case.
10. The appellant has throughout contended that the State Government/competent authority had granted permission for sale of the land in question as required 10 under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, and therefore, it is too late in the day for him to now contend that the land in question is not a granted land, and therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that respondent no.8 has not described the land in question as a granted land in the suit and she has described the same as ancestral property, and hence the land in question is not a granted land, is liable to be rejected.
11. In so far as the contention that the appellant has developed and cultivated the land in question, and therefore, the Tahsildar is required to comply with the requirement of Rule 3(6) of the Rules, before taking possession is concerned, the said stage is yet to be reached and as and when the Tahsildar issues notice to the appellant for surrendering possession, it is always open to the appellant to raise such contention and it is needless to state that in the event of the appellant raising such a contention before the Tahsildar, the Tahsildar is required to consider the same in the background of the order passed by this Court in Bheemaiah's case supra.
11
12. In view of the preceding analysis, we find no merit in this appeal, and therefore, we decline to entertain this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE KK