Karnataka High Court
Sri Aswathappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 April, 2022
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
WRIT PETITON NO.15263 OF 2014(SC-ST)
BETWEEN
1. SRI ASWATHAPPA
S/O LATE MUNISWAMY
(DEAD BY HIS LR'S)
1(a) SMT. MUNITHAYAMMA
W/O LATE ASWATHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
1(b) SRI. A. KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O LATE ASWATHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
1(c) SRI. A. NAGARAJU
S/O LATE ASWATHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
1(d) SRI. A. SUBRAMANI
S/O LATE ASWATHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
1(e) SRI. A. MANOHAR
S/O LATE ASWATHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
-2-
2. SRI SUBBARAYAPPA
S/O LATE MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
3. SMT. CHIKKAMUNIYAMMA
W/O VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT BEERASANDRA VILLAGE
KUNDANA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
4. SRI MUNIKRISHNA
S/O LATE VARADAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
5. SRI MUNIYAPPA
S/O CHIKKAGULLONU
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT CHIKKA KEMPANAHALLI VILLAGE
KUNDANA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
No.1(a) TO (e), 2 & 4 ARE RESIDING AT
ALURU DUDDANAHALLI VILLAGE
KUNDANA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. S. SUSHEELA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. T.R. RAMESHA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY
-3-
TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE 560001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIOENR
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
O/AT VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWER
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE 560001
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DODDABALALPURA SUB-DIVISION
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
O/AT VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWER
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE 560001
4. SMT. MUNIYAMMA
W/O LATE PILLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
5. SMT. ANJANAMMA
MAJOR IN AGE
W/O RAMANJINAPPA
R/AT SEEKANAHALLI VILLAGE
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT
6. SMT. MUNITHAYAMMA
W/O LATE RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
7. SMT. ANNAPURNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
W/O CHANDRAPPA
D/O SONNAPPA
R/AT NINGANAHALLI VILLAGE
-4-
RAJANKUNTE POST
HESSARGHATTA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
8. SMT. KEMPAMMA
W/O LATE BYRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
9. SMT. KRISHNAMMA
W/O LATE SHAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
10. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O SONNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
11. SRI. MANJUNATH
S/O SONNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
12. SRI SAMPANGAPPA
S/O MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/AT KADIGANAHALLI VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
13. SMT. NAGAVENI
W/O CHANDRAPPA
D/O KEMPAMMA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
NO.4, 6, 8 TO 11, 13 ARE RESIDING AT
VISHWANATHAPURA VILLAGE,
KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT 562110
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D.C. PARAMESHWARAIAHA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3
-5-
SRI. SUNIL S. RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R8, R12 & R13
SRI. T.SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R7 &
R9 TO R11)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26.11.2007 PASSED BY R-2 &
ORDER DATED 29.07.2005 BY R-3 UNDER ANNX-K & M
RESPECTIVELY AND DIRECT THER-3 TO RESTORE THE
LAND IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONERS IN RESPECT OF
SY.NO.184/1 TO 184/5 TOTALLY MEASURING 20 ACRES,
OF VISHWANATHAPURA VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TQ., AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 13.04.2022 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THIS COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition arises out of the provisions contained in a special statute-Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'PTCL Act'). The petitioners are the legal heirs of the original grantees. -6- There are five sets of original grants, granting 4 acres each in Sy.No.184 of Vishwanathapura Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore District, in favour of Sri.Munithimma, Sri.Varada, Sri.Muniswamy, Sri.Muniswamappa and Sri.Chikkagullonu.
2. It is not disputed that these lands were granted to the five grantees by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, vide order dated 18.01.1972 and Saguvali Chits (Grant Certificates) were issued on 02.03.1972, under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969. However, one Sri.Byrappa and Sri.Pillappa filed applications in Form No.7, under the provisions of Section 48-A(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, during the year 1976, claiming to be tenants under the five original grantees and sought for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the entire 20 acres. The Land Tribunal -7- passed an order dated 30.08.1980 declaring that the applicants were tenants under the said landlords and proceeded to grant occupancy rights in favour of the applicants. However, in a writ petition filed by Sri.Varada and Sri.Munikuntappa S/o Sonnappa in W.P.Nos.21918/1980 and 21919/1980, since the order dated 30.08.1980 was set aside while remanding the matter back to the Land Tribunal to afford opportunity to cross-examine the applicants, the Land Tribunal reheard the matter. During the course of those proceedings, Sri.Byrappa passed away. However, the Land Tribunal came to a conclusion that the applicants have made out a case for grant of occupancy rights and accordingly, by order dated 21.08.1993, occupancy rights in respect of 8 acres in favour of Sri.Pillappa and 12 acres in favour of Smt.Kempamma W/o Byrappa were granted by the Land Tribunal.
-8-
3. Aggrieved by the order of the Land Tribunal, Writ Petition No.5875/1994 was filed by the original grantees/legal heirs. However, the said writ petition was not prosecuted and consequently it was dismissed for non-prosecution on 03.03.1997. In the meanwhile, during the year 1999-2000, the lands of Smt.Kempamma were partitioned under a registered partition deed dated 07.07.1999. On 02.09.2002, the petitioners herein, who are the legal heirs of the original grantees approached the Assistant Commissioner, invoking the provisions of the PTCL Act and filed a petition under Section 5, seeking to declare the conferment of occupancy rights at the hands of the Land Tribunal as null and void and consequently to resume the lands from the respondents, to be restored in favour of the petitioners herein. The Assistant Commissioner clubbed all the five petitions together and held that the lands were granted under -9- the 'Grow More Food' scheme (GMF scheme, for short) on 18.01.1972 in No.LND.SR.389/1971-72 and Saguvali Chits were issued on 02.03.1972 by the Tahsildar, Devanahalli Taluk. It was held that since initially the lands were given for cultivation under the GMF scheme and later grant was confirmed, the grant is not under Rule 43-G of the Rules, while it was granted under Rule 43-J and rightly, conditions of non-alienation were not imposed. It was held that since the Land Tribunal is a statutory authority and competent under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act to determine the rights of a tenant who was personally cultivating the lands as on 01.03.1974 and immediately prior thereto, the order of the Tribunal granting occupancy rights cannot be questioned under the provisions of the PTCL Act.
4. The appeals preferred before the Deputy Commissioner invoking the provisions of Section 5-A -10- of the PTCL Act were also dismissed while upholding the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner.
5. Learned Senior Counsel Smt.S.Susheela, appearing for the petitioners refers to series of cases in O.Dyamappa Vs. Appanna Bhovi and others, 1997 (3) KLJ 683; Siddoji Rao Vs. State of Karnataka and others 1983 (1) Kar.L.J. 478, which were followed in Thirtharama and others Vs. State of Karnataka, ILR 2011 KAR 1231, which were later reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sri.K.C.Yogesh and another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others in W.A.No.92-93/2012 and connected matters dated 22.06.2012 and Sri.B.S.Kallappa Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamagaluru and Others, in W.A.No.15844/2011 dated 08.06.2012, to submit that the issue whether a Land Tribunal could confer occupancy rights in respect of a land granted to a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community is decided and no more -11- res integra. It is submitted that it is a settled position of law that having regard to the overriding provision contained in Section 11 of the PTCL Act, the Land Tribunal orders stand overridden by the provisions of the PTCL Act.
6. However, learned counsel for the contesting respondents has raised several issues, including the question of limitation, delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in approaching the Assistant Commissioner; that the lands were granted under the GMF Scheme and in terms of Rule 43-J conditions of non-alienation have rightly not been incorporated in the Saguvali Chits; the original tenants Sri.Byrappa and Sri.Pillappa have asserted that they were tenants and since lease is also included in the definition of "transfer", under the PTCL Act, cause of action arose for the petitioners immediately after the PTCL Act was brought into force, etc. -12-
7. In order to elaborate his submissions, learned counsel for the contesting respondents submits that although it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Guntaiah & Ors. Vs. Hambamma & Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 228, that the State Government, as the sovereign authority is empowered to impose any condition while granting lands under the relevant Rules and it does not lie in the mouth of the purchaser to question the imposition of conditions of non- alienation, nevertheless, here is a case where non- alienation conditions are not imposed. It is therefore submitted that there is no violation of any of the conditions imposed in the Grant Certificate.
8. On the other hand, it is submitted that since lease is also a mode of transfer which is prohibited under the PTCL Act, the cause of action for the petitioners arose immediately after the provisions of the PTCL Act were brought into force on 01.01.1979. -13- It is submitted that the petitioners/their predecessors had rightly contended so before the Land Tribunal during the course of the proceedings under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Tribunal Act and no sooner such plea was negatived, they should have approached the Assistant Commissioner. Having regard to such undisputed facts, learned counsel submits that there is a delay of more than 35 years in filing the petition before the Assistant Commissioner. In the light of the latest decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi Vs State of Karnataka and Another, (2020) 14 SCC 232 and Vivek M. Hinduja and others Vs. M. Ashwatha and Others, (2020) 14 SCC 228, it is submitted that the enormous delay cannot be condoned and consequently the petition itself should have been dismissed by the authorities on the ground of delay and laches.
-14-
9. It is further submitted that there is a delay of about 6 years and 4 months in filing this writ petition, since the order of the Deputy Commissioner was passed on 26.11.2007 and this writ petition is filed on 25.03.2014. In this regard, learned counsel for the contesting respondents submits while relying upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.Bhailal Bhai and Others, AIR 1964 SC 1006, that even in case of a writ petition filed under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution, while there is no period of limitation prescribed, nevertheless, it has been held that the maximum period fixed by the legislature as the time within which the relief by a suit in a civil court must be brought ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking remedy under Article 226 can be measured.
-15-
10. The primary argument of the learned Counsel for the contesting respondents is that the lands in question are not granted lands, since they were granted under Rule 43-J of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 and admittedly, no conditions of non- alienation were imposed in the Grant Certificates.
11. In the considered opinion of this Court, when the word 'granted land' has been defined in the PTCL Act, there is no scope for reading into the definition what is not provided for. For immediate reference, the definition of the word 'granted land' as provided in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, is extracted as follows:
"(b) "granted land" means any land granted by the Government to a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or the scheduled Tribes and includes land allotted or granted to such person under the relevant law for the time being in -16- force relating to agrarian reforms or land ceilings or abolition of inams, other than that relating to hereditary offices or rights and the word "granted" shall be construed accordingly".
12. As to how a word defined in the definition clause of a statute is to be construed can be seen from the following passage of G.P. Singh's Interpretation of Statutes:
"The definition of a word in the definition Section may either be restrictive of its ordinary meaning or it may be extensive of the same. When a word is defined to 'mean' such and such, the definition is prima facie restrictive and exhaustive, whereas, where the word defined is declared to 'include' such and such, the definition is prima facie extensive.
When by an amending Act, the word 'includes' was substituted for the -17- word 'means' in a definition Section, it was held that the intention was to make it more extensive. Further, a definition may be in the form of 'means and includes', where again the definition is exhaustive, on the other hand, if a word is defined 'to apply to and include', the definition is understood as extensive."
xxx xxx
xxx xxx
"It is well known that the Legislature uses the word 'means' where it wants to exhaust the significance of the term defined and the word 'includes' where it intends that while the term defined should retain its ordinary meaning its scope should be widened by specific enumeration of certain matters which its ordinary meaning may or may not comprise so as to make the definition enumerative but not exhaustive".-18-
13. In Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2014) 3 SCC 92, a Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court held that wherever the words 'means and include' are used, it is an indication of the fact that the definition 'is a hard-and-fast definition', and no other meaning can be assigned to the expression that is put down in the definition. It indicates an exhaustive explanation of the meaning which, for the purposes of the Act, must invariably be attached to these words or expression.
14. Having these principles enunciated, when we read the definition of the word 'granted land', as defined in the Act, the plain meaning prescribes only two requirements, one, that a grant or land holding right is bestowed under the relevant Land Grant Rules or any of the relevant law relating to agrarian reforms or land ceiling or abolition of inams, except grants relating to hereditary offices; two, that such grant is -19- made in favour of a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes. Further, in order to remove any ambiguity in cases where lands are 'allotted' or where 'occupancy rights' are granted under the provisions of any agrarian reforms or land ceiling laws or abolition of inam laws or any other rights so granted, it is clarified that they shall be construed as 'granted lands'. All such orders bestowing rights to hold land, on persons belonging to the SC/ST community shall be construed as grants, irrespective of whether the particular statute uses the word 'allot', 'grant occupancy rights' or use any other word which confers a right of holding the lands. Therefore, when the plain reading of the provision does not admit any ambiguity, it is impermissible to read anything more into the definition. To put it in the words of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hardeep Singh (supra), -20- "Generally, ordinary meaning is to be assigned to any word or phrase used or defined in a statute. Therefore, unless there is any vagueness or ambiguity, no occasion will arise to interpret the term in a manner which may add something to the meaning of the word which ordinarily does not so mean by the definition itself, more particularly, where it is a restrictive definition. Unless there are compelling reasons to do so, meaning of a restrictive and exhaustive definition would not be expanded or made extensive to embrace things which are strictly not within the meaning of the word as defined."
15. The provision does not prescribe any further qualification and brings within its fold all the grants made under the relevant Rules without any reservation or exception. Therefore, all such grants, irrespective of whether the grant is made for full price, -21- market value, upset price, reduced upset price or a portion of price is waived or a free grant, etc., all fall within the confines of the word 'granted land'. In fact, in Kariyappa @ Kariyappa Vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Hassan and Others ILR 1997 Kar 1723, it was held that the purport and import of the definition is so wide that it includes not only agricultural lands but also house sites and non- agricultural lands.
16. The concept of absolute sale is alien to the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969. The confirmation of title under the Grant Rules, 1969, is by execution of a Grant Certificate in the prescribed format. Provision has been made for grant of land to religious and charitable institutions, industrial concerns in Rules 21 and 22. In Rule 22A which was inserted and brought into effect from 09.06.2015, the market value/rates fixed on lease basis earlier under Rules 19 to 22 were -22- superseded and uniform market value or guidance value in respect of private bodies or institutions to whom grant is made on lease basis is provided for. However, even in respect of grant of land to industrial concerns, in terms of Rule 22, conditions of non- alienation for a period of thirty years is provided for. The Grant Certificates/Saguvali chits are issued as per Form-VII, in terms of Rule 29 only and there is no other form prescribed. The same Grant Certificate is prescribed even in respect of lands purchased in a public auction or on payment of upset price. The only difference between a free grant/reduced upset price and lands granted on payment of market value / full price/ upset price is regarding the stipulation of non- alienation conditions. Therefore, all such lands granted under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, are 'granted lands'. Similar is the situation even in respect of lands granted under the Mysore Land -23- Revenue Code, 1888; Mysore Land Grant Rules, 1968 and all other relevant Land Grant Rules. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the contention of the learned Counsel for respondents that since non- alienation conditions are not imposed in the Grant Certificate, the lands in question are not granted lands as defined in the PTCL Act, is rejected as untenable.
17. On the other hand, when a petition is filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, before the Assistant Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner is required to find out, in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, as to whether there is any transfer of such granted land, in contravention of the 'terms of the grant' of such land or the law providing for such grant. As noticeable, the Assistant Commissioner is required to enquire as to whether there is any contravention of the terms of the grant, on going through the Grant Certificate or whether the transfer is in contravention -24- of the law providing for such grant. As regards, the second part of the provision, it has been well settled that if there is a conflict between the conditions imposed in the Grant Certificate and the law providing for such conditions, the law or the rule shall prevail. It is also a settled position, in terms of Guntaiah (supra) that if condition of non-alienation is incorporated in the Grant Certificate, it becomes unimpeachable at the hands of the purchaser.
18. Having regard to the facts obtained in this writ petition, it is clear that there is no condition of non-alienation imposed in the Grant Certificate. However, we are not concerned, in the present context, as to whether there is any violation of the terms of the grant. This case falls under sub-section (3) of Section 5 and Section 11 of the PTCL Act. Sub- section (3) of Section 5 reads as follows: -25-
"(3) For the purposes of this section, where any granted land is in the possession of a person, other then the original grantee or his legal heir, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that such person has acquired the land by a transfer which is null and void under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 4."
Further, Section 11 reads as follows:
"11. Act to override other laws. - The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any custom, usage or contract or any decree or order of a court, tribunal or other authority".
19. Sub-section (3) of Section 5 comes into play since it was claimed by the contesting respondents' predecessors that they were tenants under the -26- predecessors of the petitioners. The word 'Transfer' has been defined to include lease or any other transaction within its ambit. If the respondents had continued to be in possession of the lands without filing an application before the Land Tribunal seeking grant of occupancy rights, the petitioners had every right to approach the Assistant Commissioner, alleging that the respondents were in unauthorized occupation, then the Assistant Commissioner would have called upon the respondents to prove that they were in possession authorizedly and that they had not acquired the land by a transfer which is null and void under the provisions of sub-section(1) of Section 4. But, even before the PTCL Act was brought into force, the respondents approached the Land Tribunal seeking grant of occupancy rights, while contending that they were tenants under the petitioners. Right through the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, the -27- petitioners have contended that the original applicants before the Tribunal namely, Sri.Byrappa and Sri.Pillappa were affluent and influential persons and they have used their clout to get their names entered in the RTCs as persons in possession of the lands. During the course of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, the petitioners made an application before the Land Tribunal contending that the matter should be referred to the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of the PTCL Act. This contention was negated by the Land Tribunal.
20. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioners cannot be faulted on the premise that they could have approached the Assistant Commissioner earlier. The petitioners, having contended all through before the Land Tribunal that the respondents have never been their tenants and they were not entitled for grant of occupancy rights, were therefore entitled -28- to await the outcome of the proceedings before the Tribunal. It was possible that the Land Tribunal would have accepted the contention of the petitioners and declared that the respondents were never the tenants occupying the lands in question. Nevertheless, when the Land Tribunal proceeded to hold that the respondents were tenants under the petitioners, the petitioners questioned the orders passed by the Tribunal before this Court. It is another matter that the said writ petition was dismissed for default by order dated 03.03.1997. The cause of action for the petitioners therefore arose from 03.03.1997, to approach the Assistant Commissioner, invoking the provisions of the PTCL Act.
21. Going by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satyan Vs. Deputy Commissioner and others, (2020) 14 SCC 210, having regard to the objective of the beneficial legislation to redress the -29- grievance of the grantees belonging to the depressed classes, the delay of about 5 years in filing the petition before the Assistant Commissioner cannot be held to be so enormous that they deserve to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
22. Even in respect of the delay of about 6 years and 4 months in filing this writ petition, the same principles as espoused in Satyan's case is applicable, having regard to the facts and circumstances narrated therein above. This presents a classic case of how grant made by the sovereign power in favour of persons belonging to the depressed classes are being cornered and usurped by the rich and the influential. There has been some criticism and heartburn expressed when orders are passed invoking the beneficial provisions of the PTCL Act while resuming and restoring the lands in favour of the original grantees. To some extent, it is understandable that -30- the purchasers having purchased the lands after tendering the market value are thereafter evicted on the ground that they purchased the lands in contravention of the terms of the grant. However, in the present case no such transfer has happened. The respondents never claimed that a lease deed was executed in their favour. On the other hand, the Land Tribunal has conferred occupancy rights in favour of the respondents.
23. Such cases also bring to the fore the mechanical manner in which the Land Tribunals function, although they are entrusted with quasi- judicial powers. 4 acres each were granted to 5 persons belonging to the depressed class. Two affluent persons claim to be tenants in respect of 12 acres and 8 acres respectively, under such persons of the depressed class. They claim to be personally cultivating the lands. No enquiry is made to find out -31- as to the total extent of land held by such affluent persons. Although it is obvious that such vast extent of land could not have been cultivated personally, the statements of the neighbors are taken as gospel truth and orders are passed by the Land Tribunals, in many such cases, depriving the poor agriculturists of their lands and livelihood. Such cases also present stark reality of how the poor who are without any means of livelihood are further mired in the legal tangle which further expose such persons to answer difficult questions like-delay in approaching the authorities/ High Court and the Supreme Court. Lack of legal awareness, legal aid and lack of sufficient means, illiteracy, poverty are the bane of the poor litigants of this nation. Time and again the Apex Court has held that the laws and procedures should not become tools in the hands of the affluent to deprive the legitimate rights of the poor litigants. When Courts are dealing -32- with beneficial legislations such as the one on hand, provisions should be interpreted in such manner that it would sub-serve the objectives with which the statute is enacted.
24. The Hon'ble Division Bench, in the case of B.S.Kallappa and K.C.Yogesh (supra) has already held that Sections 4 and 11 impart overriding effect to the PTCL Act over all other enactments. Section 11 clearly provides that the provisions of the Act shall have effect 'notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force' or any custom, usage or contract or any decree or order of a court, tribunal or other authority. That being so, it is clear that the Land Tribunal had no authority to confer occupancy rights in favour of the respondents in respect of lands granted to the petitioners who belong to the Scheduled Caste community. Challenge raised to -33- such orders of the Land Tribunal have been upheld by this Court and such orders have been quashed and set aside.
(Emphasis supplied)
25. Therefore, all the contentions raised at the hands of the contesting respondents are answered accordingly. The decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the respondents do not come to his rescue.
26. Consequently, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned orders passed by the respondent-Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner viz., order dated 29.07.2005 at Annexure 'K' and order dated 26.11.2007 at Annexure 'M' are hereby quashed and set aside.-34-
iii) It is declared that the order dated 21.08.1993 passed by the Land Tribunal, Devanahalli Taluk in LRF 47-48/78-79 is null and void, by operation of Section 11 of the PTCL Act.
iv) The third respondent-Assistant Commissioner is hereby directed to resume the lands in question viz., 4 acres each (20 acres in total) in Sy.No.184 of Vishwanathapura Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore District, from respondents No.4 to 13 and restore the same in favour of the legal heirs of the original grantees viz., Sri.Munithimma, Sri.Varada, Sri.Muniswamy, Sri.Muniswamappa and Sri.Chikkagullonu.
v) The entire exercise shall be completed in terms of the provisions contained in The Karnataka Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes (PTCL) Rules, 1979, as expeditiously as possible and at any -35- rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Ordered accordingly.
27. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE KLY/DL/JT