Karnataka High Court
Smt P Shanthi vs Govindaraju on 27 June, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:22255
WP No. 24392 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 24392 OF 2013 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
SMT. P SHANTHI
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
W/O SRI S. BHASKARAN,
NO.31, I MAIN ROAD, I STAGE,
II PHASE, MANJUNATHANAGAR,
WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 010
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.R.RAJAGOPAL, SR.COUNSEL FOR
SRI.RAMA MOHAN M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally 1. GOVINDARAJU
signed by AGED 17 YEARS,
CHAITHRA A S/O RAMAIAH,
Location: SINCE MINOR IN AGE,
HIGH
COURT OF REPRESENTED BY HIS ELDER SISTER
KARNATAKA SMT. NARASAMMA,
RESIDING AT THOTADAGUDDADAHALLI VILLAGE,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-560032
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION,
KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE-560009
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:22255
WP No. 24392 of 2013
3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE-560009
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.G.SHIVANNA, SR.COUNSEL FOR
SRI.D.R.ANANDEESHWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI.VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDED ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER PASSED BY R2 IN K-SC.ST NO.89/2005-06 DATED
24.9.08 VIDE ANNX-C AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the purchaser feeling aggrieved by the concurrent orders passed by respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner and respondent No.3-Special Deputy Commissioner, wherein petition under Sections 4 and 5 filed by legal heir of original grantee is entertained by the authorities and the sale in favour of petitioner is annulled and consequently, the land in question is restored in favour of the grantee.
2. Learned Senior Counsel Shri M.R.Rajagopal, appearing for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged -3- NC: 2023:KHC:22255 WP No. 24392 of 2013 in the writ petition would vehemently argue and place reliance on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.339/2022. Placing reliance on the said judgment, he would point out that admittedly the land in question was allotted under 'Grow More Food Scheme' and subsequently, the authorities by way of a executive order have granted land to the petitioner's vendor and therefore, he would contend that in the light of law laid down by the Division Bench, the petition land does not fall within the definition of 'granted land' as indicated in the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short "PTCL Act") and therefore, the authorities erred in entertaining the restoration petition by invoking Sections 4 and 5 of PTCL Act. He would further point out that the authorities have not granted the petition land under Rule 43-J of the Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960 (for short 'the Rules') and therefore, he would contend that the land in question would not attain the character of 'granted land' as defined under Section 3(e) -4- NC: 2023:KHC:22255 WP No. 24392 of 2013 of PTCL Act and therefore, he would request this Court to quash the order of restoration passed by the respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner and confirmed by the respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner.
3. Learned Senior Counsel Shri A.G.Shivanna, appearing for the legal heir of original grantee, repelling the contentions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has equally placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Chikka Kukkegowda vs. State of Karnataka and Others1. He has also placed reliance on the following judgments:
"1. Chikke Gowda Vs. State of Karnataka - ILr 1997 KAR 1753 (F.B).
2. Guntaiah and others Vs. Hambamma and others - (2005) 6 SCC 228.
3. Chindegowd Vs Puttanna - 2008(4) KCCR 2837.
4. Nanjamma Vs The State of Karnataka - W.P No.12748/2011, Dtd: 25.02.2022.1
ILR 1997 Kar 1753 -5- NC: 2023:KHC:22255 WP No. 24392 of 2013
5. Shivalingaiah Vs Nanjanna - WA.339/2022, Dtd:19.09.2022.
6. T.B.Mahadevaiah Vs. State and others - WP 2953-2954/2012, Dtd: 29.11.2018.
7. Shamalamma Vs. Chikkamunishami @ Tahyiga - WP 40384/2011, Dtd: 11.03.2020.
8. Srinivas Vs. Deputy Commissioner - W.P 8817-8818/2014, Dtd: 09.03.2020.
9. Muniraju and Others Vs. State and others - W.A 4127-4134/2013, Dtd: 18.03.2018.
10. V.N.Babu Reddy and others Vs. Venkatamma & others - W.P 37475/2011, Dtd:
18.12.2017.
11. Satyan Vs. Deputy Commissioner and others
- CA 2976-2983/2019, Dtd: 30.03.2019."
4. Placing reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Chikka Kukkegowda (supra), learned Senior Counsel, on the contrary, would claim that the original grantee was put in possession based on temporary lease and later it was confirmed under Rule 43-J and consequently, grant was made under Rule 43-G of the Rules. He would further take strong objections to the argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. He would point out that -6- NC: 2023:KHC:22255 WP No. 24392 of 2013 orally, for the first time, learned Senior Counsel has come up with this narrative which is not supported by pleadings in the captioned writ petition.
5. Placing reliance on the material on record, he would point out that there is sufficient material on record which gives an indication that the subject matter of the petition was granted under Rule 43-G and therefore, the authorities had jurisdiction to hold an enquiry. Supporting the reasons assigned by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, he would contend that the order under challenge is in accordance with law and would not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.
6. Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respective parties and learned HCGP. Perused the records.
7. The respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner only on the ground that alienation is made after commencement of PTCL Act has ordered for restoration of -7- NC: 2023:KHC:22255 WP No. 24392 of 2013 the land. The respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Guntaiah and Others vs. Hambamma and Others2 and referring to the material on record has come to conclusion that land in question was granted on temporary lease during 1941-42 and subsequently, it was confirmed during 1960-61 under Rule 43-J and a condition was imposed under Rule 43-G thereby imposing a restriction on alienation for a period of 20 years. It is in this background, respondent No.3- Deputy Commissioner has come to conclusion that the petition land was granted in favour of scheduled caste person and therefore, alienation is hit by Section 4(2) of PTCL Act and consequently, appeal is dismissed.
8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-grantee has also brought to the notice of this Court that after restoration, the grantee applied for permission under Section 4(2) and the Government, on 2 AIR 2005 SCW 3657 -8- NC: 2023:KHC:22255 WP No. 24392 of 2013 examination, has granted permission and the legal heirs of original grantee have sold the petition land in favour of the impleading applicants.
9. On examining the records which are annexed along with the writ petition as well as original records which were placed before this Court by learned HCGP, this Court is of the view that the matter requires a fresh hearing at the hands of the respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner. Though Deputy Commissioner has elaborately dealt with the matter and has referred to the temporary lease executed in favour of original grantee in 1941 and consequent confirmation order under Rule 43-J and has further referred to the condition imposed under Rule 43-G of the Rules, this Court is unable to trace these relevant documents from the records which are placed on record. The petitioner claims that grant was made by way of an executive order, while grantee claimed that pursuant to temporary lease, the same was confirmed under Rule 43-J followed by condition under Rule 43-G. For want of -9- NC: 2023:KHC:22255 WP No. 24392 of 2013 materials, this Court is not in a position to decide the actual lis between the parties.
10. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, if a temporary lease is confirmed under Rule 43-J followed by a condition under Rule 43-G then the land has to be deemed to be a granted land and therefore, the authorities have jurisdiction to examine the contravention of condition and violation of provisions of Section 4(2) of PTCL Act. But if the grantee is not in a position to substantiate that the condition was imposed under Rule 43-G, then the judgment cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would be squarely applicable to the facts of the case. Therefore, both the parties are at liberty to substantiate their respective claims and therefore, it is in this background, I am of the view that the matter requires a fresh consideration at the hands of the Assistant Commissioner.
11. It is needless to say that all contentions are kept open. The impleading applicants before this Court
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22255 WP No. 24392 of 2013 are reserved with liberty to file impleading application before the respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner. If such application is filed, the respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner shall examine their interest in the petition land and thereafter proceed to pass appropriate orders on the impleading application.
12. For the foregoing reasons, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed;
(ii) The order dated 24.09.2008 passed by the respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-C and the order dated 16.05.2011 passed by the respondent No.3-Special Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-D are set aside;
(iii) The matter stands remitted back to the respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner for fresh enquiry;
(iv) Since parties are represented by their respective counsel, they are hereby directed to appear before the respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner on 17.07.2023 without expecting any further notice;
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22255 WP No. 24392 of 2013
(v) The pending interlocutory application, if any, does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30