Karnataka High Court
Tippavva W/O Yallappa Pujar vs Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad on 28 October, 2013
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF OCTOBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
WRIT PETITON No.30189/2008(sc/st)
BETWEEN:
1. TIPPAVVA, W/O YALLAPPA PUJAR
SINCE DECEASED. BY HER L.RS.
1a. NINGAVVA KALLAPA DODAMANI
AGE 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O KUMBARGANAVI
TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD.
PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DHARWAD.
3. KEDARAPPA S/O BHARAMAPPA DADDI
AGE 50, OC: AGRICULTURE
R/O KUMBARGAMAVO TQ. DHARWAD.
4. RAJESAB IMMAMSAB TEGUR
SINCE DECEASED. BY L.RS.
4A. ISMAIL,
4B. RAMATULLA.
BOTH ARE MAJORS, AND S/O RAJESAB TEGUR
R/O HALE MAVIN BAZAR, DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.S. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2.
SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, Advocate. FOR R3, R4A AND
R4B)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER DATED 23.2.08 PASSED BY THE DY.
COMMISSIONER FIRST RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE E AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner claims that she is the grantee under the provisions of PTCL Act, 1978. The petitioner had made an application before the Assistant Commissioner for resumption of land and the Assistant Commissioner, who is the competent authority, passed an order in RTS/PTCL/AP/121/2001-2002 resuming the land to Tippavva. The said land was granted in the year 1963 with a condition that the land shall not be sold in contravention of the conditions. One Rajesab Immam Sab Tegur filed a suit in O.S.No.1/1975 against father of the petitioner for specific performance of contract in respect of 4 acres of land. EP 52/1981 was filed for execution of the decree. Court Commissioner was appointed in the EP for sale of the suit land as per the decree passed in O.S.No.1/1975. 3 The Assistant Commissioner held that the land is a granted land and same cannot be sold in contravention of the provisions of law. Hence, he resorted and ordered for resumption of land in favour of the petitioner.
2. Appeal has been preferred against the said order before the Deputy Commissioner by the purchaser in appeal No.PTCL/AP/CR/4/2004-05 and the said appeal came to be allowed on 23/02/2008. Hence, this petition by the grantees.
3. Learned counsel for the grantees submitted to set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner for the reason that the reasons assigned by the Deputy Commissioner in allowing the appeal that the sale has been made pursuant to Court decree against which the Assistant commissioner should not have intervened, is contrary to law.
4. Position of law is not disputed by the learned Government Pleader.
4
5. It is not in dispute that the land was granted in favour of father of the petitioner in the year 1963. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners-grantees belong to SC and they are the grantees under the provisions of the Act. After PTCL Act came into existence in the year 1978, prior permission is required by the Deputy Commissioner. Section 8 of the CPC bars civil Court from adjudicating the cases where statute occupies the field. PTCL Act also bars the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 11 of the Act.
6. Under this circumstance, the judgment and decree passed in O.S.1/1975 is an error of law and in contravention of the provisions of the PTCL Act and Section 8 of the CPC. Hence, reasons assigned by the Deputy Commissioner is perverse and in contravention of the Act. Accordingly, I pass the following order:
7. Writ Petition is allowed. Order at Annexure "E"
dated 23/02/2008 passed by the Deputy Commissioner is 5 hereby quashed. Order of the Assistant Commissioner is confirmed. Land is restored and resumed in favour of the petitioner.
SD/-
JUDGE kmv