Karnataka High Court
Sri.D.Shankarappa vs Sri.Muni Nanjappa on 12 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.51705 OF 2014 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
SRI. D.SHANKARAPPA
S/O DASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/A DANAVALLI VILLAGE
NARASAPUR HOBLI
KOLAR TALUK-563 101
KOLAR DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KRISHNA B J, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI.MUNI NANJAPPA
S/O DYAVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/A BELAMARANA HALLI VILLAGE
VEMGAL HOBLI
KOLAR TALUK-563 101
KOLAR DISTRICT.
2. SRI. VENKATARATHANAMMA
W/O D. MUNI NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/A BELAMARANA HALLI VILLAGE
2
VEMGAL HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK-563 101
KOLAR DISTRICT.
3. SRI. C N MANJUNATHA
S/O THIPPENAHALLI NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/A CHAKARASANAHALLI VILLAGE
NARASAPUR HOBLI
KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-563 101.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOLAR DISTRICT
KOLAR-563 101.
5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KOLAR SUB DIVISION
KOLAR-563 101.
6. THE TAHASILDAR
KOLAR SUB DIVISION
KOLAR-563 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. VISWESWARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1
SRI. V. VISHWANATH SETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2
SRI. M. SANDESH KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-4 RO R-6
R-3 DISMISSED AS ABATED VIDE ORDER
DATED 18.2.2021)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY R-4, THE
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DATED 20.8.2014 VIDE
ANNX-F AND IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-5, THE
ASST. COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DATED 25.11.2011 VIDE
ANNX-G AND PLEASED TO REMAND THE MATTER TO THE
R-5 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR FOR FRESH
DISPOSAL THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND
ETC.
3
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 20.8.2014 vide Annexure-F and order dated 25.11.2011 vide Annexure-G has filed the present writ petition.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:
It is the case that originally Sy.No.145/p2-p2 measuring 1 acre 05 guntas situated at Belemaranahalli Village, Vemagal Hobli, Kolar dist. was owned and possessed by Dyavappa as his private property and it is not a Government land. After the demise of Dyavappa, the same was succeeded by the his son Muninanjappa i.e. respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 sold the said land in favour of respondent No.3 under registered sale deed dated 4 11.9.2001. On the strength of the registered sale deed, the name of respondent No.3-Manjunatha was entered in the revenue records. Respondent No.3 in turn has sold the said land in favour of the petitioner under registered sale deed dated 2.12.2002.
Respondent No.1 alleging that he belongs to the scheduled caste filed an application under Section 5(1) of The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PTCL Act') for restoration of the said land. Respondent No.5 passed an order allowing the application filed by respondent No.1 and declared the sale deed as null and void and passed an order for resumption of land in favour of respondent No.1. The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.5 filed an appeal before respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 has confirmed the order of respondent No.5 and 5 consequently dismissed the appeal. Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsels for respondents No.1 and 2 and learned HCGP for respondents No.5 and 6.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1 has not pleaded in the application that he belongs to the scheduled caste. The said aspect was not considered by respondents No.4 and 5 and has proceeded to pass the impugned order. He submits that now respondent No.1 has produced the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Kolar in compliance with the order passed by this Court on 9.6.2021. He further submits that respondent No.1 is therefore, required to prove the contents of the caste certificate. Hence, he submits that the matter requires reconsideration by 6 respondent No.5 and therefore, prays to allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 supports the impugned order. He submits that respondent No.1 has produced the caste certificate dated 2.9.2013 before this Court to show that respondent No.1 belongs to Scheduled Caste. Hence, he submits that respondents No.4 and 5 were justified in passing the impugned order. On these grounds, respondent No.1 prays to dismiss the writ petition.
6. Heard and perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. It is not in dispute that the land was sold in favour of respondent No.3 and respondent No.3 in turn has sold the said land to the petitioner under 7 registered sale deed dated 2.12.2002. Respondent No.1 has filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The petitioner has produced a copy of the application filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-D. From a perusal of the application, its is seen that respondent No.1 has not pleaded therein that he belongs to the scheduled caste. Respondent No.1 has produced the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar before this Court to establish that he belongs to the scheduled caste. Respondents No. 4 and 5 without examining the said aspect has proceeded to pass the impugned order. The provisions of the PTCL Act is applicable to the persons belonging to the weaker section of the society who have been deprived of the lands. The object of the said PTCL Act is the non alienation contained in the existing Land Grant Rules and provisions for compilation of grants where the land is alienated in contravention of the above 8 provision are found not sufficient to help the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes grantees whose ignorance and poverty have been exploited by persons belonging to the affluent and powerful sections to obtain sales or mortgages either for a nominal consideration or for no consideration at all and they have become victims of circumstances. To fulfill the purpose of the grant, the land even if it has been alienated, should be restored to the original grantee or his heirs.
8. Further, in order to apply the provisions of the Act, the applicants have to prove that they belong to scheduled caste and scheduled tribes and one of the essential ingredient to claim restoration of land is available under Section 5 of the PTCL Act.
9. From a perusal of the application filed by respondent No.1 (Annexure-D), it is seen that respondent No.1 has not pleaded in the application 9 that he belongs to the scheduled caste. Respondent No.1 has produced a copy of the caste certificate before this Court. Hence, in order to provide an opportunity to the parties, this Court is of the view that it is just and necessary to remit the matter to respondent No.5.
10. In view of the above discussion, the following order is passed :
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned orders are set aside.
iii) The matter is remitted to respondent No.5.
Respondent No.5 is directed to provide an opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence on the point whether respondent No.1 belongs to the scheduled tribe and thereafter pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of six 10 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
iv) The parties are directed to appear before respondent No.5 on 20.12.2021.
All the contentions of the parties are kept open for the time being.
SD/-
JUDGE rs