Karnataka High Court
Sri Kadeerappa vs Deputy Commissioner on 3 December, 2010
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 3"' DAY OF DECEMBER 2010 T BEFORE _ THE HON'BLE MR. 3UST1CE ASHOTCB. HINC*RIGE~RT"'~:: WRIT PETITION No.369 or%A2o;o'A(Rsi:/S.T)--- M C/w wan PETITION Nos.370, 372,'37B_a'nd 37,5 of WRIT PETITION No.369 OF 201G"T_ BETWEEN: 1. SR1 KADEERAPPA I ._ S/O LATE MUNISHAMARRA' ' AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS H " R/AT SINGRAHALLI VILLAGE" -- V. KLJNDANA HOBLI,g_.* 2; DEVANAHALLI TALsj]i_<_q ~ S _ BANGALORE RU_.RAL'VDISTR1.C-T * PETITIONER 1. (BYSR1'-R'N_M.RRASAD, ADVOCATE) WRIT P£TI.'TI§'JN'_' Nq.37o"O'r~' .--:}_'O.1b' BETWEENB " Tia M/EXTDDURAMMA SINCE D_EA.D'«vBY HER LRS SR1 MAD'D.U RA'R.RA S/AOMADDLJ"RAF'%1%'4A AGED ABOUT'j'..---A9 YEARS, HSMT. PTLEAMMA V/C). LATE NARASIMHAPPA "«EE'DAUC_«HTER-IN-LAW OF LATE MADDURAMMA 'AG'ED ABOUT 45 YEARS BOTH ARE R/O SINGRAHALLI VILLAGE RUDNANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALLJK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PETITIONERS (BY SRE H N M RRASAD, ADVOCATE) WRIT PETITION M0372 OF 2010 BETWEEN: I . SMT. SATHYAMMA SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HER LRS SRI CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE SATHYAMMA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/A SINGRAHALLI VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL District 1.';;~RET1T1ONER (BY SR1 H N M.BRABAO;AB\2'O<:.A'TrE) wnrr PETITION No.3?5 oFV,2aioj ' BETWEEN: 1. SR! MUNIYAP_PA--f__ S/O LATE yOELLA_PPAI:;,_ _ AGED A.BOuTA45»yEAiRs ._ R/A SINTGRAH/\LLIxVI.,LAC~5E"*.L_ KUNDANA HOBLI,-- VO'E\jjA_NA.HA»L¢L: TALUK BANGALORE RURAL 1:>Tstr:ct PETITIONER (BVYBRIHB N 51 PRASAD, ADVOCATE) iA(_Ri'T pE*ri'TiA"c;N:E":e.9.376 BE 2010 BETEw.E'E:ix_:.:'V' * = B' SRI RBAJAPPAE' S/O MUN"£YA"PPA v./AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS . _R,fA,SIE\IG'RAHALLI VILLAGE _ ~._RL1NB*ANA HOLBI . L>E\/EN'AHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL District PETITIONER (BY SR1 H N M PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, V V TOWERS, PODIUM BLOCK BANGALORE [J ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER - DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION, V V TOWERS, PODIUM BLOCK BANGALORE 3. SHRI KIM JI PATIL S/O LATE KESHARAHARJEE PATIL , AGED ABOUT NOT KNOWN... - R/AT NO.807, MOHAN BuI_L'DINGS ,ICI£<I>_ET._ BANGALORE -- 560 053 " * REP.BY HIS GPA HOL_DER.~' _ - SHRI MAHESH _£<ISH_ANCHAN=D A ' S/O KISHAN_CH'ANDf,V__~.'. 'I R/A 29/1, CRAIG"'RA'RK--.LAYO-LIT' _ M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE _¢4*56'0 C0; 4. THE THA_SI1--._DA.R" * DEvENAHALLITALLn<j_C'~,_ ~ ' DEVANAHA=LLI; * . V BANGALORE"RuR,A,L DISTRICT RESPONDENTS
5' " L. ' (COMMON IN ALL THE PETITIONS) ._ (BY SRIIH T NARENDRA PRASAD, HCGP FOR R1, R2 & R4, SRI'\x1S'HNu._H'EGDEv FOR SR1 M T NANAIAH & ASSOCIATES FOR R3} I TI}§+'E--.Iw'RIT"rRE'T7.:TION NO.369/2010 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES V226 AND..44227L.OF'j:THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CASE NO. LND SC/ST(A) 22/2007-08 ON THE «. .I.I'_j':E.-"ILE..OF THE"R1'i~AND PERUSE THE SAME AND ETC. THE"WRIT PETITION NO. 370/2010 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES V226 AND' 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL THEE RECORDS IN CASE NO. LND SC/ST(A} 85/2006-07 ON THE FF'ILE..O~«' THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND PERUSE THE SAME AND ETC. THE WRIT PETITION NO. 372/2010 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES CD226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CASE NO. JLND SC/ST(A)20/2007-08 ON THE FILE OF THE R1 AND PEREJSE THE SAME AND ETC.
THE WRIT PETITION NO. 375/2010 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYINO T.O-CALL FOR THE RECORDS EN CASE NO. LND SC/ST(A) 88/2006-O,7,O1\luT_HE FILE OF THE IST RESPONDENT AND PERUSE THE SAME ANMDVET'C..:. THE WRIT PETITION No. 376/2016 IS FILED UNDERVARTS-:'CE»E'S 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PR.-'\.Y_I"i'\lG"TO.CALL~.. ' FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN CASE NO. .LN'D--.SC/ST(A)"8?,/2007-O8 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND P_ERI;,%S'E TH'E.._S'/WE AND' THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR'.PRE«EIMINARY=." HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DANS'-i.THE 'C.OURT.= MADE THE FOLLOWING:
A IE-7 In all these Cases,:.*H1€:'Ip€3tiTti.Ql;lIEIfSDi1E§A/e raised the Challenge {to _lQe«put«§/I".Commissioner's order, dated 17.12.2007.
2.._'T:rIe__TAflaC_ts oAf"'th.e...::ase in brief are that the lands in qiiestion'Were"gran't'e.d to the members of the depressed Classes.
The gra.nteesVbeVl'o_nfgVto Adi Karnataka. The Saguvali Chits (grant TVi_C§Ei'tifiCateS).. Contained the clause against the alienation of the .1.-~gVrai'n'teAd'Eland"for a period of 15 years. The 3"" respondent's 'A"4Eif-.fath'er"pUrChased the lands in question in 1995 either from the Tgr'a.n.tees or from their legal representatives. The grantees or iltheir legal representatives sought the invalidating of the Sale 33% '\ deeds in favour of the 3rd respondent's father and sought their restoration to themselves. The Assistant Commissioner by separate but by identical orders, dated 18.02.2006 a|l4o.vlredi~.the petitioners' applications by invalidating the sale in favour of the 3"' respondent's father and _.'by'°di'r~etit~ing_ Tahsiidar to take the possession ofV'-the;"iand7.ar1d:"'tfhereafierr J restore the same to the cirainteesff'-..and/oirj1ti*:e.i.Ij'_.'3leoa!Vi* representatives.
3. These orders of "'it.*ii'e.. Assisitantff Commissioner were challenged by the-*__3"' the Deputy Commissionerfibfy' Deputy Commissioner by separate but by 'idVén.t'i«eai--~._:Aord'ers set aside the Assistant C5mmissi_oner'sfl'ordVer.f~Ti*i'esé" petitions are filed impugning the 1-Deputy "E?om.;"nis"si.oner'sV "order. H ~4.'--SriVVH'.Vi\E'r.-M';§i5rasad, the learned counsel for the petitioners sL:bmitsufthat-Vynothing is in dispute in these petitions. He submits t'he--.resVp'ondent No.3 himseif has admitted that the lands in q.ufes'tion"are the granted lands. He brings to my notice, the a.dVn*iisfsion made by the respondent No.3 in the first sentence of para--4i of his statement of objections:
£§%L 6 " It is submitted that, the suit schedule property alfotted to the petitioner during 1978~79.... " A'
5. He also brings to my notice the recitai_~in».t:hje:sa:le«.cIee"ci~ executed by the petitioners in favoui; oft-ithe ..res4p'o'ii-d_e:}t's father, which reads as follows:
" ...... .. the same having. beei1"'a.t:tyuii*e_d i'Ii"n1'*'i/ide grant Order No.B.DS.'L--ND.S'R__ dated 19- 6-1979 of the Dep uty.._Coinnqissionerg 'Bangalore /I District ,,,, ,.
6. ~n.tsi,iiastithgi' i;;spoa[¢ient ."iiio.3 has admitted that the lands in quhesutionh arVe"»tVrie"'g:ranted iands, the question of the Detitionera_,Provinélthtitehfadinihtted fact would not arise at ali. He 1-Valwso-i'su'brniits that nowhere -~ neither before the Assistant Co'inmi«ssion:e:_'i'noiV:_'i;efore the Deputy Commissioner, the 3"' }""i'*vresponci.ent the stand that the petitioners do not ""'.-::V'"vi?€_o|'Of1g to"v,A1di Karnataka. He submits that the Assistant Coi*nan*iiss:i.oner has passed the pains--taking order, examining not 'only the grant certificate but aiso the contemporaneous records. "V"~.'.l'iie learned counsei submits that the Assistant Commissioner has formulated the following proper questions and answered them. They are as follows:
i) Whether the appellants belong to Scheciuled Caste/Scheduled Tribe?
ii) Whether the lands in question are free H by the Government to the ap;:ieAl'|arits?"..é
iii) Whether the alienation ofA:".__th'eV_z propertyi.
contravention of the gran't.ryc"onditions? A
7. Sri Prasad submits Assll'st'afnt.A"Ctommissioner has verified and satisfied hVi.mselfvrt~hatj:ino~--peVrrn'issi'b.n"for the sale of the lands was Government. He also submits that the respoiident l\lo,.3,l_lji's»i_:s"fat'ne~r evaded the service of notice sent by the. -Assista'ntyVCommissi'o.ner in some cases. »8V;V"i>er .oo«ntra;~--.$ri Vishnu Hegde, the learned counsel for ':v__the re.sp:o.n.deVVnt%l\iLo.3"submits that the lands in question are not V'7_the--grante"d yylanads at all. According to him, full market value was .1 -.paiduftoi' tine Government by the petitioners/their predecessors in also submits that the enquiry heid by the Assistant ' »v._V,Co~mVr"ni'ssioner is not proper at all. If an opportunity is given, the .V"i.--""respondent No.3 would place all the materials before the §, 8 Assistant Commissioner to show that the petitioners/their predecessors-in--tit|e took the land on saie basis. He submits that except copies of the saguvaii chits, no other documents"»a'ire produced. He relies on this Court's decision in SMTZCHOWDAMMA v. specma. oEPu1T)i_coii1M'IsiSIo~i$ivE.R,ii BANGALORE AND OTHERS, reported ir-.._IL:a2§oG2.' RA-R327-.34::ir_i« to advance the contention that theparties'-.cannoi;'V:sirri'p.E_yH upon the Saguvali Chit. The relevant-..:pa.rvagraphl_of the said judgment is extracted hereinbe--!_oi'Jv_:A H l " .... .. This he has to do oniy'~oh~ theggbasis either the original grant -order- 'or, "if ;='o'r'A som_e"--'reas~on like the grant such the order of grantlis not'aiiaiiahle,.:atIleast he has to look into the grant registerxrnaéintained for this purpose. Time V and again this . has emphasised that the V. 'auth'oritie's cannot rely upon the saguvali chit it-i_orodu'ced...hyeither of the parties. The saguvali chits Aliihike and in most of the case issued _ casually sense the saguvali chits are in printed form anclavhile issuing the same most of the times '_ Xtheg Vunnecessary and inapplicable portion is even not off, for example, in the first clause it is to be mentioned the land was granted by way of sale or public auction or for upset price or free of costs. The grant would be under any on of these categories. It 9 is noticed that in most of the cases, even this unnecessary portion is not scored off thereby leaving it open to the imagination of the parties and authorities as to what is the nature of grant';.,ff«._l"'- Similarly, as law requires the non~alienation perio_d"is ., :_. é also be mentioned as a part of conditions,__in'~~..thef in saguvali chit. But, this is also not done"c:sually,« fThi_; Court has held that issuance of sa1guv_alli"l'chlit_is_,anV' incidental act like issuing certificate p'r'actiCali;/V"beingV administrative action on the pa'rtn'of theV"autl'iorities, but, for the purpose ofi"application:_:"oflthe pro!/isio'ns of the Land Grant the authorities are req.uired:to~~look intog_thAe._o'i'iginal grant order or the recoitds' con.cern'ing"ityincluding the Land Grant Fziegistereifnaiiiitainedtfor purpose of which the authorities theinsehvesggjajre custodian. Without looking intothese" vital "documents, most of the time the €§Ufliorities"rjust' casually rely upon the saguvali l°chit"and-.'pas'sordersone way or the other. Since on Lionel'"hand"violation of the provisions of the Grant Ruiesi'and".'the'g;;l3TCL Act, vis-a~vis the property right by "way..__'o'i'~transfer is involved, the authorities are V'-rrequirédfiand expected to make thorough enquiry ":,'espe'e_ially when in most of the cases the grantees ~ a'r:e"i'lliterate persons coming from lower strata of the
-sohciety. It is a mandatory duty of the authorities, as {aid down by the Division Bench in Pedda Reddy's case cited supra, to verify from the records and give fififii I0 their findings based on such records. If that is not done, the orders passed by such authorities are unsustainable ones."
9. Sri Vishnu Hegde has also reiied on this Court's in the case of NAGENDRAPPA AND ANOTHER COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE AN °,-i0T.MERSr1'ig.ré'i§O'rtéd'.'_1'in'I 1* it ILR 2002 KAR 2670. He read out the zizertisfhniiibeiori sthex note, which reads as foliows:
"Authority deciding the njatter.-.'7as'g'-to"*~!ook into the original order granting the .lai?d?Viand"--iif~ same is not available then contenvporaneous"docuinents like the Register' purpose what is known asgtarnd Gra.n"t.R'egister has to be looked into. Authorities"dec'iding_ the "va'ifidity of sale cannot act on presumption or"m_ere Mutation Entries."
1OV.'r-Nwe;<_tvAi3i,A Sri"~--V_ishnu Hegde sought to draw support from iv_the omsieni'Bber{i:hjLid'eiment of this Court in the case of PEDDA Vineopv v.""'sTA:r.E"oF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, reported in .1 to argue that the Assistant Commissioner itsf'roan-ntotbidetiare the safe of the land granted under the provisions 1g.._of 't-hVe"'Fiuies as void uniess he rcords the foilowing findings. 5 .§§£.
II ''(E) That the grant was made in favour of a person belonging to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe;
(ii) That the grant was either on upset price or free grant or for a price less than for 'V' price; and _. .. V
(iii) That the alienation had takenv"place wtthi-;i~.
- period of prohibition prescri'bVed.__l'under__"t.hge.. "
Rules."
1:. Sri Vishnu Hegde that Assistant Commissioner in the cases on""l:V:a_nd"--h_a'siivnotsffrariaed the proper point for adjudicationi _'l'h_e Iea'r'ned:1co:urn:s--e'| tsubmits that if the respondent"No.-gflrlilslAlia-tiverjdidl not"'participate in the enquiry proceedings beam'.-¢ Commissioner, it is only because they' 'didxnot ll1aV\:/Ve.._ 'notice of the proceedings. That Wlth'O'Ut'S€1N;l'3ng"..:Afl'l3A|'1ClE'iEe"G-Fl'th€lT1, the respondent No.3 and/or his father"vver'e.4:'p!a'ced---.exparte is the grievance of Sri Vishnu C Hegde.
Sri~~v'H;..T.Narendra Prasad, the learned High Court G'ov.ern'rn.eVnt"~«_P|eader appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and that the alienation of the granted lands has taken >tpla,c'e'.'after the commencement an f the PTCL Act. He submits that even if the land is taken for an upset price, the provisions o_f__the PTCL Act are attracted. He also submits that the respjoin:d'erit,A No.3 and/or his father have not disputed the status of the original grantees.
13. I have minutely scrutinized theéterders by them V Assistant Commissioner and the find that the Assistant Commissioner toiverify the records and to deliver the
a) The lands 'grainted
b) The grante'es,:"befl|"d'n'g Caste.
c) The in favour of the responderit obtaining the permission.
14. I,tǤis'Vaii~so woirthwflhile, to notice that the sale permission, which tiharespiond-e,An't,No.3/his father claim to have obtained by Zgtheir vlendiors,it'isa"_rvi-of'produced either in the proceedings before the Deputy""Cori"imisVsioner or before the Assistant Commissioner this Court. Further, the very claim of the respondent permission was obtained shows that the lands in R"g._questio'n"lwere granted to persons belonging to the Scheduled Otherwise, there would not have been any need for the ii I3 respondent No.3 to contend that the permission for sale came to be obtained.
15. The decisions relied upon by the third respondrentfs side do not come to its rescue in any way. in t_h§e'"c-as-e_l:__'of__'*_ Chowdamma (supra), it is heid that the authoritiesa4te~..re'n:ui«.redVg:it to make a thorough enquiry as in m=,ost,.off}the":'.casesgf-thieivi.' grantees are illiterate persons comiiwgh from._tl'ie io'.s;'v'e'r_rstrata'; of the society. Similarly in the case of'w«.V'£\lagendrap:pa': (supra) a considered view is taken that.<_"l'i«-- the oir!g'ii'iaE,;Ag«rant order is not available, then the contemporan:eousV..docurneiits"iike, the land grant registeifjhasly' the instant case, the original grant horde-rsb are rightly considered by the Assistant Cornrriis_sioner.A'. A far as respondent's contention that no propVer_'_:,4f'o.rn'igiiated by the Assistant Commissioner is jibi't:.oncerned,,_"'this. .Co1iV;:9i: does not see any substance in the said ..bcfontention because the Assistant Commissioner has formulated ':pVVro.per"_points and answered them cogentiy based on the scrutiny ' of -a'EVl"the% relevant records.
31$ is :4
17. This Court in the case of G.M.MALLIKARJUNAPPA v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAVANGERE, reported in 2005(2) Kai-.L.3 205 has held that the appiicants for the restowration cannot be compelled to prove their case, as if the_.resto.ifa--ti__on___ application is some kind of adversarial iitigation. _-Ti"ie.:.1s:hen1e_of: it W the PTCL Act as such is that the Ass=i.stanit«,Conirnissioner 7 required to ascertain from the'«._..Vrecoifds, contemporary records, as to granted, whether the grantee be|ongs..':"to'é.V:Sche'duI'eld:"~Casteificheduled Tribe. This burden cannot "theA:l':g1.riaV'ntees or their L.Rs. The approach3...:Vof::1the Cornrniss'i'o"ner that the Eegai representative, is the original grant order, saguvali chit, etc'.s.._Esl notin.'4VK'eep:f'ng with the legislative intent and thve.,.schem«e_,'Vto sayV.'t'i=..e__iea,st. Nothing prevented the Deputy Cornmisjsii-onerv1'to--m"'~st:mmoning the necessary records from the office of the'Tlahs'_iilda,r'."V. For the reasons best known to himself, dityhe Deputy Conjrriéilssioner would not do so. On the other hand, .1 as,_iudev'sthe Assistant Commissioner's order without any T".4';i_uStilfica--to'ry reasons for doing so. I5
18. For an the aforesaid reasons, I quash the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner stand restored. These _mat-t_es:s do not ever: cat! for being remanded to Commissioner, as he has deiivered justfipnpdings"'Da5.e'd,'onv"the.s,i V records.
19. 'These petitions are aEiowed..__accordV_ingiy. oorpderii as to costs.
bvr