Karnataka High Court
Sri. Karunodaya vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 July, 2019
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
WRIT PETITION NO.35129/2017 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN
SRI. KARUNODAYA
S/O MUNISHAMAPPA
AGED 52 YEARS
R/O THIRUMALASHETTIHALLY VILLAGE
ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI
HOSAKOTE TALUK-562114
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
... PETITIONER
(By SRI : A KESHAVA BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560001
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
4TH FLOOR, V V MINI TOWER
BENGALURU-560001
3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
HOSAKOTE TALUK OFFICE
HOSAKOTE-572114
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
-2-
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION
OFF:1ST FLOOR
TALUK OFFICE BUILDING
DODDABALLAPURA
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561203
5. THE TAHASILDAR
HOSAKOTE TALUK-572114
HOSAKOTE,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562114
... RESPONDENTS
(By SRI : T.S.MAHANTESH, AGA FOR R1-R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO EFFECT THE PHODI
WORK IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.5/P13,
MEASURING 2-00 ACRES, SITUATED AT
THIRUMALASHETTIHALLI VILLAGE, ANUGONDANAHALLI
HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, AS PER THE APPLICATION
DTD.29.9.2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE
ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATING
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner herein is a person belonging to scheduled Caste. According to him, his mother Munivenkatamma was granted 2 acres of land in Sy.No.5 of Tirumalashettihalli village, Anugondanahalli Hobli, Hosakote Taluk, in the year -3- 1983 in proceedings bearing No.B.Dis.No.LND.SR(1) 175/1978-79, dated 6.12.1983 issued by the Tahsildar of Hosakote Taluk, where the said order would indicate that the aforesaid order is in respect of regularization of unauthorized cultivation of land bearing Sy.No.5 of Tirumalashettihalli village. In the said order at Annexure-A it is seen that the name of petitioner's mother is at Sl.No.5 with reference to grant of an extent of 2 acres of land. Thereafter, her name was mutated in revenue records vide MR.No.1/1993-94.
2. The records would indicate that even before the moratorium period of 15 years is completed, the grantee's husband - Munishamappa (by that time grantee was said to have died) sold the aforesaid extent of 2 acres of land in favour of one Gangamma in or around 1995. Subsequently, he filed an application before the competent authority under Sections 4 and 5 of PTCL Act seeking restoration of the said land. In that behalf, proceedings was initiated in No.LND:SC/ST.13/1995-96 on the file of Assistant -4- Commissioner, Doddaballapur Sub Division, Bengaluru, where an order was passed on 8.3.1996 directing the Government to reclaim the land from Gangamma w/o Govindappa and thereafter, to re-grant it to the legal representatives of grantee, who were applicants before the competent authority under Section 5(1) of the PTCL Act. It is this restoration which has not taken place till today, for the reason that, according to the petitioner though the land on record is restored, he is not put in possession of the land. In other words, physical possession is not given to him and the authorities inspite of repeated requests have failed to deliver possession which has resulted in filing of this writ petition seeking to conduct phodi of the extent of land which is reclaimed by the Government and put the applicant before the competent authority in possession of the phoded portion.
3. This writ petition initially came to be disposed of by order dated 10.8.2017 to carryout phodi work within four months from the date of receipt of the order. It is during the said period, the authorities noticed that the place where the -5- petitioner is claiming the portion of land which is sought to be restored to him as legal representative of original grantee
- Munivenkatamma is not the place where land granted to his mother was located. According to learned Additional Government Advocate, the land claimed in the place referred to by the petitioner was already allotted to A.K.Colony prior to 1927.
4. In the meanwhile, since the order of this Court in the first round was not complied it is seen that the petitioner initiated contempt proceedings in CCC.No.2180/2017 where the submission of the State is not believed to the extent that the land shown by the petitioner is not the land which was granted in his mother's favour and in that behalf the contempt court also imposed a cost of Rs.10,000/- on the then Tahsildar for his failure to identify the land and to put the petitioner in possession thereof. Subsequently, it is seen that RP.No.143/2018 was filed seeking revival of this matter which was allowed and the writ petition was restored to file to be disposed of on merits.
-6-
5. It is at this stage, this Court secured the presence of Mr.Ramesh, Tahsildar and Mr.Roop Kumar, ADLR of Hosakote Taluk and directed them to produce all the original records which are available with them to demonstrate what was the land that was actually allotted to petitioner's mother - Munivenkatamma for the reason that, consistently the petitioner is insisting that a portion which is identified in Red Colour bearing No.5 in the sketch relied upon by the petitioner and the State is the land that was allotted to his mother and according to him that is Block No.5. However, according to Mr.Mahantesh, learned Additional Government Advocate, throughout it was the stand of the State that what was granted in favour of petitioner's mother was Block No.2 which portion is also shown in red square is situated away from Block No.5.
6. In this background, in the light of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner when Annexure-A is looked into, it is seen that the name of petitioner's mother is -7- at Sl.No.5 with 2 acres as being allotted to her. Therefore, he is contending that Sl.No.5 is the Block number. However, when all the original records are secured on last date of hearing, this Court was able to notice that there is infact another mahazar, which is appended to letter dated 23.7.1979 in No.LND(1) SR.80/1979-80 on the file of Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, wherein the first name is that of petitioner's mother - Munivenkatamma, where the extent of land which is granted to her is shown as 2 acres in Block No.2. With this, the contention of the petitioner that what was granted to his mother is Block No.5 is totally demolished, inasmuch as there is no legs for that argument to stand in the light of aforesaid document which is appended to aforesaid letter of the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District. This document is also seen by learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri.Keshava Bhat and he would accept the same.
7. In this background, if the entire material on record is re-appreciated what was contended by the -8- petitioner as the land belonging to him is based on the schedule which is shown in the sale deed executed by his father in favour of Smt.Gangamma. Admittedly, after the land was granted in favour of Munivenkatamma, no phodi and durasth work has taken place. The land which was granted in her favour was not identified by boundaries and no boundaries were available to the said land. Inspite of that, while selling 2 acres of land Munishamappa (petitioner's father/grantee's husband) has shown the land as identifiable to certain boundaries on 4 sides thereof, which sale deed is annulled by the competent authority in a proceedings initiated under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act by Munivenaktamma's legal representatives, namely her husband and children after her death.
8. When the records are looked into, what is clearly seen is that, Munivenkatamma was granted 2 acres of land which was not in Block No.5 but it was in Block No.2. Admittedly, Block No.5 is situated in a place where A.K.Colony has been in existence since 1927. Pausing for a -9- while here, this Court would also try to analyse some of the documents which are relied upon by the petitioner.
9. In this proceedings, the petitioner would try to produce certain endorsements to show that there was no land allotted to A.K.Colony either in 1927 or before or after that. To buttress that line of argument he would rely upon certain documents said to have issued by the Officers of ADLR as well as Revenue Department. By taking through that, he would try to state that there was no land in existence as A.K.Colony either in the year 1927 or in the year 1982-83. However, the original Tippani Book of the years prior to 1921 produced by the learned Additional Government Advocate would indicate at page No.12 that in a place where the petitioner is asserting his 2 acres of land is situated, is shown as A K Colony. In fact, this fact is re- affirmed by the Village Map which is of the year 1921 where the relevant portion, where the petitioner is claiming that he has 2 acres of land is shown as A.K.Colony. Therefore, it clearly discloses that all the documents which are now
- 10 -
produced to show that there was no A.K.Colony as per the endorsement issued by some of the revenue officials is highly doubtful as against the village map of the year 1921 and also as against the survey Tippani Book of the years prior to 1927.
10. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner which he canvassed in the earlier round of this writ petition and based on which he was able to initiate contempt proceedings and successfully get an officer of Revenue Department fined to an extent of Rs.10,000/- are all without any basis. Be that as it may.
11. Now what is required to be seen is, whether the petitioner is entitled to be restored to an extent of 2 acres of land by the State. In this behalf, he would state that 2 acres of land which was granted to him was situated in the place now shown as A.K.Colony, which according to him, is sold by his father (grantee's husband) to one Gangamma under registered sale deed of 1985 and admittedly, when the said sale deed was set aside pursuant to the provisions of the
- 11 -
PTCL Act the entire land was vested with the Government, the Government will have to restore this 2 acres of land to the petitioner. However, admittedly, the place which is now shown as the place in which the petitioner has got right on the basis of Grant Certificate is not the place which was granted in his mother's favour as demonstrated by the learned Additional Government Advocate with reference to Village Map and with reference to Tippani record. Therefore, the only option that is left to the Court is to see that 2 acres of land is identified and then the same is given to the petitioner.
12. In this background, when Mr.Ramesh, Tahsildar of Hosakote Taluk, is called upon to state whether any vacant land is available in a place where the petitioner has claimed his land as it was granted in favour of his mother, he would state that the entire area is fully developed and it has become residential area. Therefore, according to him, there is no land available, which this Court would accept. This Court would hypothetically observe that the developed
- 12 -
land cannot be given to the petitioner for the simple reason that, admittedly, the intention of Legislators while enacting the PTCL Act is to ensure that grant of land which is made in favour of a person belonging to oppressed class, namely the persons belonging to the Schedule Caste and other scheduled identified communities should be restored to them so that they would cultivate the same and eke out their livelihood from out of the land which is given to them. However, this object has been misinterpreted and the provisions of the PTCL Act are misused in such a way that even if the land is fully developed and it comes within the Urban area, the same is claimed for the purpose of real estate business or development activity thereon, but that was never the intent and purport of the PTCL Act.
13. What was the intent of Legislators while the said Act was enacted is to ensure that, the persons belonging to oppressed class who are provided with agricultural land to ensure that they have a decent living by utilizing the same for cultivation and eke out livelihood. It was never the
- 13 -
intention of the legislators to ensure that these people would indulge in real estate activity, but this is actually what is going on now in the society. In fact, what was given to oppressed class under the provisions of PTCL Act as a shield is being utilized by them as sword to ruin thousands of families, who have invested their hard earned money in the residential layouts formed thereon are being disturbed to relocate the so-called oppressed class people which was never the intent of legislators and that was never the intention behind enacting the PTCL Act.
14. Therefore, to ensure that the intent and purport of the PTCL Act is respected and upheld, this Court on an earlier occasion directed the Tahsildar of Hosakote Taluk to identify 2 acres of agricultural land which could be utilized for the purpose of agricultural activity to be given to the petitioner to ensure that he would cultivate and then eke out his livelihood on that, instead of venturing into real estate business in a developed area. When such direction was given to Tahsildar of Hosakote Taluk, he came out with the
- 14 -
particulars of 2 acres of land being available in Sy.No.2 of Doddaramanahlli village, Nandagudi Hobli, Hosakote Taluk, which is measuring about 2 acres 5 guntas with 2 acres of ain land and 5 guntas kharab, which according to him is suitable for agricultural activity.
15. Accordingly, pursuant to the order of restoration dated 8.3.1996 in proceedings No.LND:SC/ST.13/1995-96 on the file of Assistant Commissioner - Competent Authority, Doddaballapur Sub Division, Bengaluru, this Court would direct the Tahsildar of Hosakote Taluk, to restore 2 acres of land in Sy.No.2 of Doddaramanahlli village, Nandagudi Hobli, Hosakote Taluk, measuring to an extent of 2 acres 5 guntas with 2 acres of ain land and 5 guntas of kharab appended thereto for agricultural activity of the petitioner to eke out his livelihood as it was intended under the Act.
16. With such observations, this writ petition is disposed of. While disposing of the matter the Tahsildar of Hosakote Taluk is hereby directed that within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, he shall ensure
- 15 -
that saguvali chit, possession of the aforesaid extent of land and the other requisite documents should be delivered to the petitioner to allow him to carryout agricultural activity immediately. Pursuant to that, it is also made clear that phodi and durasth work of the said land in the name of the petitioner shall be carried out and his name should be registered in the mutation register as the grantee in cultivation and possession of the same pursuant to order of restoration in proceedings bearing No.LND:SC/ST.13/1995- 96 in place of 2 acres of land which was allotted to his mother in Sy.No.5 of Tirumalashetti village. The said procedure shall be completed by the ADLR of Hosakote Taluk within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE nd/-