Karnataka High Court
K L Gangadharaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 14 September, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION No.4953 OF 2012 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
K.L. GANGADHARAIAH
S/O LATE BORAIAH
ALIAS KAKKEBORAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
URAGAHALLI VILLAGE
BIDADI HOBLI
RAMANAGARAM TALUK
DISTRICT RAMANAGARAM.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI N B BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 0001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA AT
RAMANAGAR.
2
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
RAMANAGAR SUB-DIVISION AT
RAMANAGAR
DISTRICT RAMANAGAR.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
RAMANAGAR TALUK
AT RAMANAGAR.
5. SRI. SIDDAIAH
S/O MADEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/O KENJIGARAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
TALUK AND DISTRICT RAMANAGAR.
6. SMT. GOWRAMMA
W/O DUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
SINCE DEAD REP. BY HER LR'S
6(a) SRI. ANKEGOWDA
S/O GOWRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
6(b) SHIVAMADHU
S/O GOWRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
6(c) SIDDARAJU
S/O GOWRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
6(d) MAHADEV
S/O GOWRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
3
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
KENJIGARAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
TALUK AND DISTRICT
RAMANAGAR-571511.
7. SRI. C.P. GANGADHARESWAR
S/O PUTTAMADEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/O CHAKKERE VILLAGE
MALUR HOBLI
CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4
SMT SUKANYA H D, ADVOCATE FOR R5
SRI P B AJITH, ADVOCATE FOR R6(a) to (d)
SRI NARENDRA D V GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R.7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.01.2011
PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGAR
DISTRICT, RAMANAGAR-R2, IN CASE NO. L.N.D.SC/ST(A)
16/07-08 AS PER ANNEXURE - G AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The schedule property was granted in favour of the father of the petitioner on 10.02.1953 and saguvali chit was issued in favour of the grantee. One of the condition 4 imposed in the grant order was that the subject land shall not be alienated for a period of ten years from the date of grant. The original grantee conveyed the subject land in favour of the father of respondent Nos.5 and 6 by executing a registered Sale Deed dated 23.04.1963.
2. The petitioner claiming to be the legal representative of the deceased grantee filed an application under Section 5 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'PTCL Act') for restoration and resumption of the subject land alleging that the sale deed executed in favour of the father of respondent Nos.5 and 6 was in contravention of Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act. The Assistant Commissioner set aside the sale deed and restored the subject land in favour of the petitioner and the same was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner.
Against which, the first purchaser filed W.P.No.21/1995 before this Court.
53. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court set aside the order restoring the subject land in favour of the petitioner and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner concerned for deciding the application filed by the petitioner afresh. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 15.11.1998 declared the sale deed executed in favour of the father of respondent Nos.5 and 6 as null and void and restored the subject land in favour of the petitioner.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner conveyed the subject land in favour of respondent no.7 by executing a registered sale deed on 07.09.2000. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal filed by the purchaser confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Against which, respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed W.P.No.27965/2001. This Court by order dated 18.08.2003 set aside the order of restoration and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner to hold an enquiry afresh. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the application under Section 5 of 6 the PTCL Act filed by the petitioner stating that the petitioner is in the habit of repeatedly selling the granted land after obtaining the order of restoration. Against which, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 5 of the PTCL Act before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner by order dated 05.01.2011 rejected the application filed by the petitioner in so far it relates to the sale made in favour of the father of respondent Nos.5 and 6, however, observed that the sale made in favour of respondent No.7 is contrary to Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act.
5. I have examined the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties.
6. The subject land was granted to the father of the petitioner vide grant order dated 10.02.1953 and one of the condition imposed was that the subject land shall not to be alienated for a period of 10 years. The original grantee during his lifetime conveyed the subject land in favour of the father of respondent Nos.5 and 6 by 7 executing a registered sale deed on 23.04.1963. The application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was filed by the petitioner claiming to the LRs of the deceased grantee.
The petitioner after obtaining an order of restoration, sold the subject land in favour of respondent No.7. The petitioner is in the habit of selling the subject land repeatedly and is not entitled to get the benefit of restoration as specified under Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act.
Even if the sale is in contravention of Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhadre Gowda and others vs. The Deputy Commissioner and others in W.A.No.512/2011 disposed of on 07.06.2011, at paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, has held as under:
"4. The original grantee i.e., Cheluvaiah again sold a part of the grant land measuring 3 acres 30 guntas (out of the total grant land measuring 4 acres) to Somegowda on 03.02.1992. Yet again, the original grantee Cheluvaiah approached the Assistant Commissioner, Hunsur Sub-Division, seeking to repudiate the instant sale in favour of 8 Somegowda, again under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The Assistant Commissioner, Hunsur Sub-
Division by order dated 25.05.1999 declared the sale dated 03.02.1992 made by Channegowda in favour of Somegowda as null and void i.e. in violation of the mandate contained under Section 4 of the PTCL Act. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Hunsur Sub- Division, the transferee assailed the order by preferring an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore Division Bench. The said appeal was however, dismissed by an order dated 30.11.2010. The orders dated 25.05.1999 and 30.11.2010 (referred to hereinabove) were assailed by the transferee before this Court by filing Writ Petition No.41310/10. The said writ petition came to be dismissed on 10.01.2011. The instant writ appeal, has been preferred by the appellant so as to assail the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 10.01.2011 whereby, the Writ Petition No.41310/10 assailing the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Hunsur Sub-Division and the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District, dated 25.05.1999 and 30.11.2010 respectively, came to be dismissed. For the same reasons, as were recorded by this court when the earlier sale made by the original grantee came to be challenged before this court in Writ Petition No.16486/1985, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the 9 learned Single Judge while dismissing the Writ Petition No.41310/2010 vide order dated 10.01.2011, as the sale made by Cheluvaiah was impermissible, and as such, void under the mandate of Section 4 of the PTCL Act (extracted herein above).
5. Despite our aforesaid conclusion, it is imperative for us not to leave the matter without examining the further consequences which are liable to flow after the grantee succeeds in getting the sale made by him, set aside. It is essential for us to travel a little further and determine the matters arising out of violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act, wherein, the original grantee repeatedly sells the grant land, and then seeks annulment of the sale. These are cases where the vendor successfully reaps the benefit of his own wrong. This case, like others dealt with by us, reveals the misuse of a legislative enactment for personal gains. In the first instance, the original grantee Cheluvaiah sold the grant land on 01.10.1962. Having succeeded in getting the aforesaid sale declared as void, the grant land came to be restored back to him. Fully aware of the fact that he could not have sold the grant land, he sold it yet again to Somegowda on 03.02.1992. Cheluvaiah again succeeded in getting the second sale made by him set aside, so as to retrieve the land. The question that we wish to determine is, 10 whether having got the sale revoked, the original grantee is entitled to retain the consideration amount received by him?. We are satisfied, that repeated sales at the hands of the original grantee constitutes the offence of cheating under the Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. A person who cheats, is definitely not entitled to seek restoration of the grant land and retain the consideration received by him by sale thereof. It is therefore, that we desire to hereby grant liberty to the appellants to recover the sale consideration paid by Somegowda to Cheluvaiah on 03.02.1992 as the grant land has been restored to Cheluvaiah (now his legal heirs). The other alternative, as we have concluded hereinabove, is not available to the appellants in view of the Section 4 of the PTCL Act. Cheluvaiah (his legal heirs as is the position in this case) are certainly not entitled to retain the consideration received by them, based on a sale in violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act. Thus, it shall be open to the appellants herein to seek the refund of the sale consideration along with interest thereon, if they are so advised, by proceeding against the respondents through a civil litigation, if the amount is unilaterally not refunded.
6. It also needs to be recorded here, that when a grantee repeatedly sells the grant land, it is open to the vendee to initiate criminal prosecution 11 against him. Such repeated sale is nothing but a process of cheating. Even though the instant determination at our hands may not be available to the appellants herein against Cheluvaiah, who has since died, but this determination shall certainly deter to the original grantees from misusing the legislative enactment under reference for personal monitory gains."
7. In view of the aforesaid observations, the petitioner is not entitled for restoration of subject land. Hence, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE mv