Karnataka High Court
The Tibetian Children'S Village vs Deputy Commissioner Ramanagaram ... on 7 April, 2017
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A S Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION No.15802/2007 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
THE TIBETIAN CHILDREN'S VILLAGE
HQRS:DHARMASALA, CANTT-1786216
KANGRA DISTRICT
HIMACHAL PRADESH
R/BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
MR. TSERING DORGEE
S/O LUNG TOK
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/O SHESHAGIRIHALLY,
HEJJALA POST, BIDADI HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUPREETH S, ADV. FOR
SRI. P SRINIVASAIAH, ADV. (NOC))
AND:
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT
RAMANAGARAM
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
RAMANGARAM SUB-DIVISION
RAMANAGARAM.
3. SMT. NINGAMMA
W/O LATE RAMAIAH
R/O SHESHAGIRI COLONY
BIDADI HOBLI
RAMANAGARAM TALUK
2
4. T SURESH KUMAR
S/O THIMME GOWDA
NO.65, VANI VILAS RD
BASAVANAGUDI,
BANGALORE -560004
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP. FOR R1 & 2
SRI B.C. RAJANNA, ADV. FOR R3, R4 IS SERVED)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO DIRECT
THE R1 TO CONSIDER THE REVIEW PETITION AND STAY THE
APPLICATION DATED 09.08.2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AT
ANNEXURE C AND D OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE AND QUASH
THE ORDER DATED 10.07.2007 OF THE R1, THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE
VIDE ANNEXURE B.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 10.07.2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in Appeal No.LND SC/ST (A)54/2006- 07 as at Annexure-B to the petition. Through the amendment the petitioner no doubt has sought consideration of the review petition which has been filed before the Deputy Commissioner. Since this Court is taking note of the correctness or otherwise of the order 3 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the need to consider the prayer for direction to decide the review petition would not be necessary and as such the prayer assailing the order dated 10.07.2007 is considered as the main prayer in this petition.
2. The petitioner herein is the purchaser of the land bearing Sy.No.77, Block No.42 situate at Sheshagiri village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagar Taluk. The same was purchased under the sale deed dated 25.06.1994. The third respondent herein filed an application before the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner claiming that there is violation of the provisions of Section 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition and Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ('the Act' for short). The Assistant Commissioner after having considered the matter in detail through his order dated 09.06.2006 has arrived at the conclusion that the provisions of the Act has not been violated and in that 4 view had rejected the application made by respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 claiming to be aggrieved by the said order passed by the Assistant Commissioner had preferred the appeal under Section 5A of the Act which was registered in Appeal No.LND SC/ST (A) 54/ 2006-07. The Deputy Commissioner after taking note of the rival contentions has set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and has held that the transaction under which the petitioner has purchased the property would violate Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. It is in that circumstance, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Since the competent authorities under the Act have taken a divergent view of the matter, this Court will have to take note of both the orders and arrive at a conclusion as to the consideration as made therein. Insofar as the fact that the property in question was granted through Darkhast order dated 17.02.1978 is the undisputed position. The Saguvali chit was issued on 5 31.05.1978 with a condition that the property shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years. The grantee himself after the non-alienation period of 15 years had filed an application seeking conversion of the land for residential purpose and the same was approved by the order dated 27.05.1994. It is subsequent thereto the sale has been made in favour of the vendor of the petitioner on 04.06.1994 and the petitioner has thereafter purchased on 25.06.1994. In the present circumstance what is necessary to be noticed is that the grant as made initially was for the agricultural purpose and at the point when the violation of the provisions of the Act would be alleged, the power provided under the Act is also to set aside such transaction, forfeit the land and restore it to the grantee. The object being that the purpose of the grant should be achieved inasmuch as the persons belonging to the lower strata of society who are granted such land to carry out the avocation, the protection should also be available so 6 that the transactions which are made contrary to the provisions of the Act is to be set aside so that the purpose of the grant would be achieved in such manner.
4. If that aspect of the matter is kept in view and the instant facts are perused, the grantee himself had given up the use of land for agricultural purpose and had applied for grant of conversion of the land after the embargo on alienation for 15 years had lapsed. In the process of granting the conversion order, the competent authorities were required to take note of these aspects of the matter and in that light when the conversion of the land is granted, the permission for alienating the property is deemed to have been granted. In such circumstance, whereupon the converted land is alienated violation of the provision of the Act would not arise. Therefore the consideration as made by the Assistant Commissioner in the present facts and circumstance relating to the conversion order being granted on 27.05.1994 and the 7 sale having taken place subsequent thereto on 04.06.1994 would indicate that the sale was after such period and the violation as contemplated under the Act had not occurred.
5. If the consideration as made by the Assistant Commissioner is kept in view and the reason assigned by the Deputy Commissioner is taken into consideration, the reason would not justify the action inasmuch as the land had been converted. Even though as observed by the Deputy Commissioner the provision contained in Sections 4 and 5 of the Act do not refer to these aspects of the matter, as already noticed the conversion was made after the embargo on alienation had ceased and thereafter the property had been sold and as such the fact situation is not the normal circumstance.
6. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the order dated 10.07.2007 passed by the Deputy 8 Commissioner is not justified. The same is accordingly quashed. Consequently the order dated 09.06.2006 passed by the Assistant Commissioner is restored.
The petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.
Sd/-
JUDGE akc/bms