Karnataka High Court
M Jayashankar S/O. Late M Veeraswamy vs Shantaiya S/O. Govindu on 22 August, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9330
WP No. 104179 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 104179 OF 2014 (SCST-)
BETWEEN:
M. JAYASHANKAR S/O. LATE M. VEERASWAMY,
AGE: ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: NO. 24/11, YASINSAAB STREET,
COWL BAZAAR, BELLARY.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAMESH B. KALE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI SHANTAIYA S/O. GOVINDU,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. DANAPPA STREET, COWL BAZAAR,
BELLARY.
2. THE TAHASILDAR,
BELLARY TALUKA, BELLARY.
Digitally signed
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
MOHANKUMAR
by
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR
BELLARY SUB-DIVISION,
B SHELAR Location:
DHARWAD
Date:
BELLARY.
2023.08.29
16:23:37 -0700
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BELLARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI T. BASAVANAGOUDA, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R2 TO R4;)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31/08/2009
PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN APPEAL /84/2008-09 VIDE
ANNEXURE-F TO THE WRIT PETITION ; ISSUES A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS, DIRECTION, DECLARATION AND ANY OTHER
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9330
WP No. 104179 of 2014
APPROPRIATE ORDER AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER
THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the purchaser questioning the order passed by respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner, who has ordered by restoration of the land on the ground that the land in question is alienated in violation of the provisions of The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred as 'PTCL Act' for brevity) and the same is confirmed by respondent No.4/Deputy Commissioner. The captioned writ petition is filed by the purchaser feeling aggrieved by the concurrent order passed by the authorities.
2. The short point that needs consideration at the hands of this Court is as to whether the 3rd respondent/Assistant Commissioner has jurisdiction to entertain the application under Sections 4 and 5 of the -3- NC: 2023:KHC-D:9330 WP No. 104179 of 2014 PTCL Act, ignoring the fact that the land in question was a tenanted land and 1st respondent's ancestor namely Harijana Dubbanna and H.Nagappa were registered as occupants and occupancy rights was granted by Land Tribunal, Ballari and form No.10 is issued by the jurisdictional Tahasildar.
3. If these significant details are looked into, I am of the view that the present case on hand is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Mohammed Jaffar and Another Vs State of Karnataka and Others reported in 2003 (1) Kar. L.J.337 (FB).
4. The Full Bench of this Court while dealing with an identical case held that occupancy rights granted under the provisions of Land Reforms Act, does not amount to grant of land for depressed class and therefore, alienation of land is not hit by prohibitions contained in the PTCL Act. -4-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9330 WP No. 104179 of 2014
5. In the light of law laid down by Full Bench of this Court, I am of the view that respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain the resumption application under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. Therefore, he ought not have invoked the provisions of PTCL Act. The order of restoration passed by respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner and confirmed by respondent No.4/Deputy Commissioner is one without jurisdiction and non est in the eye of law. For the reasons stated supra, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 31.08.2009 passed by 4th respondent vide Annexure-F is hereby set-aside.
Sd/-
JUDGE AM/-. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64