Karnataka High Court
Smt. Mallamma W/O Shantappa Nandi vs The Deputy Commissioner And Ors on 28 August, 2017
Author: S.Sujatha
Bench: S.Sujatha
1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION No.200417/2016 (SC/ST PTCL)
BETWEEN:
Smt Mallamma
W/o Shantappa Nandi,
Occ: Household work,
Aged about 35 years,
R/o. Kolhar,
Tq: B.Bagewadi,
Dist: Vijayapura.
...Petitioner
(By Smt Ratna N. Shivayogimath, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Deputy Commissioner,
Vijayapura, Dist: Vijayapura 586101.
2. The Assistant Commissioner,
Vijayapura, Dist: Vijayapura 586101.
3. Kasavva,
D/o Hanmantha Madar,
Aged about 70 years,
4. Mahadeva,
S/o Hanamantha Madar,
Aged about 45 years,
2
Respondent No. 3 and 4 are
R/o Muthhaladinni,
Tq: B.Bagewadi,
Dist: Vijayapura 586203.
...Respondents
(By Sri. R.V.Nadagouda, AAG for Sri A.Syed Habeeb,
AGA for R-1 and R-2;
Sri Ashok S. Kinagi, Advocate for R-3 and R-4)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a writ or order, writ in the
nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated
21.12.2015 in No. LND/PTCL/Appeal/10/2013-14 and the
order dated 03.12.2013 in No. P.T.C.L.: CR-4/2012-13 passed
by the 1st and 2nd respondent vide Annexure-E and D
respectively.
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing 'B' group
this day, the court made the following:-
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 21.12.2015 and 3.12.2013 passed by the 1st and 2nd respondents (vide Annexure-E and D to the writ petition) respectively.
32. The land bearing Sy. No.62/3 measuring 12 acres 6 guntas situated at Muthhaladinni village, Tq. B.Bagewadi, District Vijayapura was granted to one Durgappa Shivappa Madar, by the Land Tribunal under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, in its order dated 8.7.1976. It transpires that in the partition dated 3.9.1988 the said land in question has fallen to the share of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. After lapse of 34 years, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have executed a sale deed on 24.8.2010 in favour of the petitioner, accordingly the name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue records. It appears that after lapse of three years from the date of execution of the sale deed, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have filed an application before the 2nd respondent under section 4 of the Karnataka Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands), Act, 1978, seeking to declare the sale deed as void. The 2nd respondent passed the order dated 3.12.2013 which is confirmed by the 1st respondent. Hence, this writ petition. 4
3. The learned counsel Smt Ratna M. Shivayogimath, appearing for the petitioner would contend that the occupancy rights were conferred on the father of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 under section 48(A) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, as such, the same would not fall within the ambit of 'granted land' defined under section 3(1)(b) of the Karnataka Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands), Act, 1978. Hence, the said Act is not attracted to the present case.
4. The learned counsel Sri Ashok Kinagi, appearing for the contesting respondent Nos. 3 and 4, placing reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Thirtharama and others V/s State of Karnataka and others reported in ILR 2011 Karnataka 1231, submitted that any subsequent transfer of land granted under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act would also to be null and void, if the occupancy rights are 5 belonging to the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. Much emphasis was placed on section 3(1)(b) of Karnataka Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands), Act, 1978.
5. The issue involved in this case is no more Res integra, in view of the full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Mohammed Jaffar and another V/s State of Karnataka and others, reported in 2003(1) KCCR 110 (FB). The question referred to the Full Bench reads thus;
"Whether the land in respect of which occupancy rights have been conferred in favour of a tenant under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1974, can be construed as "granted land" as defined under Section 3(b) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibitiion of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, wherever the 6 tenant belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and this is amenable to the jurisdiction and operation of the PTCL Act or only restricted meaning to be given in this regard?"
The said question is answered as under;
" On overall consideration and as discussed above, we are of the view that the land in respect of which the occupancy right has conferred under Section 48A of the K.L.R. Act would not fall within the ambit of 'granted land' as defined under Section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act and answer the referred question in negative."
6. In view of the said dictum, the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 do not inspire any confidence. In the case of Thirthamma and 7 others supra, the question referred to the Division Bench was to whether the Karnataka Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands), Act, 1978 is inapplicable to the granted land i.e., land granted by the Government belonging to any of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, but in respect of which the occupancy rights subsequently granted to the tenant under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. As aforesaid, the land in question was not granted by the Government to a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe under the PTCL Act. On the other hand, the occupancy rights were granted originally to a tenant belonging to the Schedule Caste/schedule Tribe under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. Hence, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the case.
7. In view of the law declared by the Full Bench in the case of Mohammed Jaffar and another, supra, the 8 writ petition deserves to be allowed and is ordered accordingly.
The Writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 21.12.2015 and 3.12.2013 at Annexures-E and D respectively are quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE *MK