Karnataka High Court
H B Shivaram vs The Deputy Commissioner on 7 September, 2012
Bench: Chief Justice, B.V.Nagarathna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.VIKRAMAJIT SEN, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
Writ Appeal No.4829/2012 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
H B SHIVARAM
S/O LATE H.K. BACHANNA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
NO.172, HEBBAL,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.
... APPELLANT
(By SRI MURALI N., ADV. FOR
SRI T A RAMAKRISHNAPPA, ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT,
CHICKBALLAPUR.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHICKBALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION,
CHICKBALLAPUR.
3. THE TAHSILDAR
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK,
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRTICT.
4. NARAYANAMMA
W/O MUNIYAPPA,
D/O.NARAYANAPPA,
SINGARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KUNDALA HOBLI,DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
2
5. MANJULAMMA
W/O MUNIYAPPA,
D/O.NARAYANAPPA,
BDA, KALLAHALLI VILLAGE,
S.C.GARDEN,
BANGALORE EAST. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V. RAGHAVENDRA, ADV. FOR C/R4 & R5
SRI VEERAPPA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION
NO.22968/2012(SC/ST) DATED 25/07/2012.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, C.J. (Oral) :
The matter was heard at great length yesterday and was adjourned to enable the counsel to obtain instructions.
Now a prayer for adjournment is made on the ground that counsel who argued the matter yesterday is not available.
That is not a ground for adjourning the matter.
2. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge on 25.07.2012 takes notice of Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (PTCL) Act, 1978 (in short `the PTCL Act') inasmuch as, the sale in favour of the appellant-petitioner had taken place on 3 26.06.1995. This is after coming into the effect of the PTCL Act. Section 4 unequivocally states that such transaction would be held null and void. The argument which was advanced was that the subject land does not fall within the definition of `granted land' as per Section 3(b) of the PTCL Act which reads as follows:
3(b) "Granted land" means any land granted by the Government to a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes and includes land allotted or granted to such persons under the relevant law for the time being in force relating to agrarian reforms or land ceilings or abolition of inams, other than that relating to hereditary offices or rights and the word "granted" shall be construed accordingly;"
3. Both the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner have concurrently held that land in question was granted land. So far as the Assistant Commissioner is concerned, the following extracted part of the order is explicit so far as the finding that the land falls within the definition of `granted land'.
"The arguments of Appellant and Respondents have been considered in detail:
1. Land in Survey No.38, New No.38/4 of Kuruburahalli Village, Jangamakote Hobli was allotted to the father of the Appellant -4
Narayanappa in Darkasth vide Official Memorandum of the Assistant Commissioner No.LND 930/1974-75 dated 25.1.1975. According to the Darkasth record of Thasildar, Siddalgatta No.LND/CH/289/1974-75, the alienation of land was prohibited for 15 years from 26.02.1975 and saguvali chit was given to the original allottee.
2. The appellant belongs to Akikarnataka caste, and to that effect caste certificate obtained from Tahsildar, Devanahalli was produced.
3. The sale of the said land to the respondent is revealed by registered Sale Deed No.476/1995-96 dated 26.06.1995.
4. The Survey No.38/P4 `Karabland' New No.106, extent 2 acres 36 guntas was revealed in Akarband.
5. The said land was sold by the original allottee, without prior permission of the Authority as per Section 4(2) of PTCL Act, 1978."
4. The Deputy Commissioner has also considered the matter in great detail and has returned a finding in the following words:
"9. The Assistant Commissioner submitted the concerned records. The records and documents have been perused.
10. The Survey No.38 New No.38/34, extent 3 acres minus karab 0.04 Guntas, 5 and extent 2 acres 36 guntas of Kurubarahalli Village, Jangamakot Hobli, Sidlagatta Taluk was sanctioned to Narayanappa S/o.Nagappa vide 930/74-75 dated 25.01.1975, with a condition not to alienate for 15 years and Saguvali chit was used vide No.M.R.879/76-77.
23. The sanction register was verified, the value Rs120, Mutation fee Rs.20, Podi Rs.25, was paid as revealed in Saguvali Chit. Having considered it, the value of consideration for sanction was only Rs.75, and if compared to rates prevailing during that period, it is too low and thus, according to statements of appellant it is not the land sold on consideration."
. 5. These are concurrent findings of fact which we find have no perversity and the same have been rightly affirmed by the learned Single Judge.
6. On perusal of the sale deed dated 26th June 1995 which is in favour of the appellant, it clearly mentions that the acquisition was through `Darkasth', thereby making it abundantly clear that appellant had full notice of the character of the land i.e. it was `granted land'.
7. We are not persuaded by the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant which was to the effect that employment of words `public auction' is indicative of the fact that the grant was not by way of `Darkasth'. It is 6 not disputed that `Saguvali Chit' stands issued in respect of this transaction. It was for this reason that the `Grant Certificate' specifically states that land was unalienable for the period of 15 years. Had it been assailed on market price, such stipulation would not have been open by public auction.
8. The vexed question which next arises is whether the contesting respondent should be permitted or expected to retain moneys received in connection with the transaction which is held to be null and void. Any transfer of consideration in a void transaction is liable to be restituted or returned.
9. In these circumstances, respondents 4 and 5 to whom possession has been restored pursuant to the orders which have been passed by the Assistant Commissioner , shall pay a sum of Rs.85,500/- together with interest thereon at 6% per annum. Payment be made within eight weeks from today. If this payment is not made, respondent no.2 is directed to initiate proceedings for resuming the land to the State.
7
10. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE Sk/-