Karnataka High Court
Sri Byrappa vs The Deputy Commissioner on 23 February, 2012
Bench: Chief Justice, B.V.Nagarathna
D xx:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT {ORE
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUAi2Y4'2{).e1'2 ~
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.\/TKRAMAJ1T"sEN.t C'H1:Eiifj:JUs'T1«cEwT
AND 1 _
THE HON'BLE MRs.JUsT1cE'B:V'.NAcA1~;ATH1\{§A
Writ Appeal No. 4:3~87',/ 201 1* (SC/.I§3T)°,
Between
Byrappa ' ' A
8/0 late Subbanna
Aged about 50 years .
Residing at Hosahalli Viiiagew
Channagirti Taluk 1. V as _ V:
DaVanagere.D--istr"ie_t», . _ 2 in Appellant
(By Sri P M fdir /s.My1araiah
%%%oc1;1t'e"s, ,)'7i ' A
1 T he Deputy.C§.jC>:nrni1S'sj0ner
Davanagere Di'stri.Ct}
A. Davanagerew. '
~ Th-e Assistantfjommissioner
* .. 2 Davana'ge_re Sub--DiVision
V DVav.Vanage1_',e
3 A Sri Na§aTajappa
/ Q Dyamappa
~ pp p Aged about 47 years
' Residing at Hosahalli Village
A' -- ..5Channagiri Taluk
Davanagere District. ... Respondents
R' Sri B.Veerappa, AGA for R-1 and 2;
Sri K Manjunatha Rao Bhonsle, Adv for C / R-3) was granted in 1975.
2 This Writ Appeal is filed under Karnataka High Court Act praying to set'"asi:de"thep order passed in the Writ Petition No. 6478/.20..lO.:«(SC/_ST)-'dated T. l5--4-201 1. "S This Writ Appeal Corning onf"-for hearing. this day, Chief Justice deliVered..the following; JUDGlV1I§3_l:J_T " ' Vikramaiit Sen, CJ (om) This appeal assails.i.'th:e~viforderf"'f--of»_tl'i_e learned Single Judge dismis,s.i--n:g---_ ifor restoration of possession; 'ltofthe provisions of the Karnataka and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition 'pio';:"_ of I Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafte_r referred'p'tr):_4'as:"'P'TCL Act' for the sake of brevity). 59.2? Accordingv the appellant, in his application under 'S;ecti.or1s'4 of the PTCL Act filed before the Assistant Davanagere, land bearing Sy.No.85/3 measuring. guntas, in Hosahalli Village, Channagiri The grant certificate was at-iss1.1e*d to the father of the appellant by imposing a "condition that the father of the appellant should not alienate the land granted for a period of fifteen years. It is further pleaded in that application that possession of the land was given to the appellant's father "after such grant". It is thereafter stated that the father of the a an illiterate and rustic villager, was..unduly" 'ir;1flu'enc_ed._V to . execute the sale documents. T h'"eAs_Asi~svtan~t 'Co1nnii'ssioner accepted the application and his possessionfixfaswupfielvd the Deputy Commissioner in
3. The contention'of'the.cOntes'ting" respondent before us is that the l5--3--l96O and possession:.vvas__ 5ha;nded--..__o"ver'-?'at'that time itself. This is contested 'byg. the appeV1la1'it.* as ' well as the learned Governments saleivtransaction took place on 2-2-199/'5.'" ' Chit specifically prohibits alienation if of the :la_nd.v_for':a period of fifteen years from this 1{L--7'--Al"975._.vThe learned Single Judge was of the 'opin--jori._that.fthe alienation took place after fifteen years of on 15-3-1960 and hence was not liable to .p be hcld"----Vas"n;ull and void under the provisions of PTCL Act. was also for the reason that the sale/ alienation took pla'cc':before the PTCL Act came into force.
4. In these proceedings, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent has sought to rely on the revenue records, which according to him, witness the possession of 4 the grantee from 1960 itself. These documents..'Vwei5e_.V'riot admittedly filed or relied upon beforetthg' Commissioner, Davanagere Commissioner which is the appellate he learned counsel for the cont'esting res-p.(';nr1€:nt'1,V:s'tates that revenue records were shgownzto Judge at the time of argumentsrk' records have not been filed, we :lec.line:_"toV'peI'u'sé'V>.them,xat this stage of the proceedings' 44 ' 0 forumthe contesting respondent contends that the was not empowered to impose conditionsiéthat wVe}.reA"not"Ccontained in the grant itself. It is '~ in ;;_c¢1;nect16r1-:h.at reliance has been placed on the Full 'l.3eI'1ch~v._V'deciision in Smt Hambamma vs The State of _ ILR 1999 KAR 261. In the first place, it is only the"««..gra_ntee"" who possesses locus standi to challenge any Vflnterln the grant or the Saguvali Chit. This has been A --cIariiied by their Lordships of the Apex Court in Chinde ' Qowda vs Puttamma, 2008(2) Kar.L.J, 460 (SC). Therefore, does not lie in the mouth of the contesting respondent to raise this objection before us. Be that as it may, in the case on hand, there is no evidence whatsoever that the 6 reference to a Full Bench decision in Sri Narasareddy and another vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Others, 2002(3) KCCR 1486 (FE). _Indi'sputably'Ti correctness of the decision in La)é:Inamni_a's case '\7J.a.§ one of the focal points before the Full Wefldo not observation to the effect that"de'crision in.VLa2"<ma't.:nma's case was incorrectly made. The ration~.of~-.the Fflu'l~l-Bench can be gleaned from the follovving-sentgen.c'e"t--T,:aV:i_ A. " T "'p'fTherefore',"f if"'possession has been _.de1ive1--".ed priorto thefy'dat;e of the order of lgrantrthen date order of grant, if
-------- po*ssesis.i0n"-_.is._ delivered on the date of ord'e.r_,oVf.Vg1'aant.,V the date of order of grant, . " and i'f['posseiss_ion is delivered subsequent T' to the orderlofffgrant, the date of taking of possession isfthe period from which the periodof prohibition has to be computed." paraphrased by us by stating that the Full wa's.V'"a:<'j_)f..the View that the last date is the relevant date ~V for coingpufting the period of prohibition. Three T:aicontingedncies are accounted for. Firstly, where possession .' n1ay'have preceded the grant, in which case, it was the date if "of the grant which was relevant. The second contingency that is contemplated is, whether the possession and the grant were contemporary or simultaneous, of course, such a case pose no problem as the date of grant as well as handing over of the possession aremone ai:1'd"'th:e_* ,sV'aVme. essence of the ratio is in the third»Ac'ontirigency'*~thatA is contemplated or postulated "namely, '_..pwheth"e__r'~..vpVthe possession was delivered of the grant. The Full Bench had_...}V{eld"'that.'iri--that case, the subsequent event i.e.,v .:pos_session would be relevant. Therefore,:.Aev.e.n= is no specific observation of decision in LaXmamma'.s that the Full Bench had these reasons, we find merit -the appeal ~.. .. 4 if 'A reference or reading of the Saguvali Chit would «amply clear to the contesting respondent that pijo'hibition of transfer or alienation of the land in qtiestiorrfor a period of fifteen years therefrom. The sale K."4"-Wtransacvtion in this case took place within one year of the C Sagiivali Chit. We may clarify that the Saguvali Chit, apart laying down the prescription of fifteen years for a if legitimate sale, also records that possession of the land had been handed over with the execution of the Saguvali Chit. The terms of the grant have been violated in this case and