Karnataka High Court
Sri S V Satyanarayana vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 July, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO.20794/2021 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
SRI S.V. SATYANARAYANA
S/O S.R. VENKATARATHNAM
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT MANGALAWADA VILLAGE
NIDAGAL HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK
TUMKURU DISTRICT-561 202.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAKASH K.A, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TUMKUR DISTRICT
TUMKURU-562 101.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MAHDHUGIRI SUB DIVISION
2
MADHUGIRI
TUMKURU DIVISION-572 132.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
PAVGADA TALUK
TUMKURU DISTRICT-561 202.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. N. ANITHA, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENDORSEMENT DATED 18.09.2021 ISSUED BY R-3 HEREIN TO
THE PETITIONER HEREIN ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The land bearing Sy.No.233/5 measuring 20 guntas and Sy.No.233/6 measuring 38 guntas totally measuring 1 Acre 38 guntas situated in Mangalawada Village, Nidagal Hobli, Pavagada Taluk, Tumakuru District was granted in favour of Chikkathimmaiah vide Government Order dated 9.3.1937 who belongs to Scheduled Caste community and one of the condition in the grant was that the grantee shall not alienate the subject lands for a period of more than 10 years.
3
2. The original grantee sold the subject lands in favour of Eeregowda by executing the registered sale deed dated 8.2.1958 who in turn sold the subject lands in favour of Lakshmamma and Narasappa vide registered sale deed dated 11.10.1967. Thereafter, the partition was effected between the family members of the Lakshmamma and the petitioner herein purchased the subject lands from Lakshmamma through registered sale deed dated 8.5.2018 and thereafter the name of the petitioner has been mutated in the revenue records in respect of the subject lands.
3. The petitioner with an intention to develop the subject lands submitted an application for conversion of the lands under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act to permit him to convert the subject lands for non-agricultural purpose. The said application has been rejected on the ground that the subject lands comes under the purview of the granted land as specified under the proviso of the PTCL Act, as such the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act cannot be considered. Taking exception of the same, this petition is filed. 4
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject lands were sold in the year 1958 and the PTCL came into effect from 1.1.1979 and the authority concerned even after the lapse of more than 40 years from the date of the commencement of the PTCL Act have not initiated any proceedings for resumption of the lands as specified under Section 5 of the PTCL Act and as such the provision of the PTCL Act are not applicable to the subject lands. Hence, he submits that the impugned endorsement issued by the revenue authority is one without authority of law.
5. On the other hand, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State submits that the subject lands are granted lands as defined under the PTCL Act and as such the revenue authority has rightly rejected the application submitted by the petitioner for conversion of subject lands under Section 95 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act and sought for dismissal of the petition.
6. I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 5
7. It is undisputed that the subject lands were granted in favour of Chikkathimmaiah, the original grantee vide Government Order dated 9.3.1937 who belongs to Scheduled Caste community and one of the condition imposed in the grant was that the subject lands shall not be alienated for a period of more than 10 years. By registered sale deed dated 18.2.1958, the original grantee sold the subject lands in favour of Eeregowda and in turn Eeregowda sold the subject lands to Lakshmamma and Narasappa and in turn they acquired the subject lands under the partition effected between the family members thus executed the registered sale deeds dated 8.5.2018 in favour of the petitioner.
8. The Respondents suomoto have not initiated any action for resumption of the subject lands under Section 5 of the PTCL Act for violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act, even after the lapse of more than 40 years from the commencement of the PTCL Act. Suo moto action has to be initiated under Section 5 of the PTCL Act within reasonable time if no time is specified for resuming the land.
6
9. In the absence of any order of resumption of the subject lands in favour of the Government, the impugned endorsement issued by the revenue authority is contrary to section 95 of the KLR Act and the same is not sustainable.
10. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) Impugned endorsement dated 18.9.2021 issued by respondent No.3 at Annexure-G and also the impugned endorsement dated 4.1.2019 issued by respondent No.2 at Annexure-B are hereby quashed.
iii) The respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner is hereby directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for conversion of land under Section 95 of the PTCL Act and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE HR