Karnataka High Court
Lagamanna S/O Kadappa Kamati vs The Deputy Commissioner on 11 December, 2013
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
WRIT PETITION No.19870/2007 (SC ST)
C/W
WRIT PETITION No.770/2008
IN W.P.No.19870/2007
BETWEEN:
1. LAGAMANNA S/O KADAPPA KAMATI,
AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT HONNAPURA, TALUK & DIST: DHARWAD-01.
2. BASAPPA S/O BABU CHIKKANNAVAR,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O -DO-
3. SHEKAPPA S/O BABU CHIKKANNAVAR,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O -DO-
4. GURUSHIDDAPPA S/O BABU CHIKKANNAVAR,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O -DO-
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.MADANMOHAN M.KHANNUR, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD-580001.
2
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
DHARWAD SUB-DIVISION,
DHARWAD - 580001.
3. THE TAHASILDAR,
DHARWAD TALUK, DHARWAD-580001.
4. MUDUKAPPA S/O RAMAPPA GUGGARATTI
SINCE DECEASED BY LRs.,
a. LAKKAVVA KOM. MUDUKAPPA GUGGARATTI,
AGE: MAJOR (CORRECT AGE NOT KNOWN)
R/O CHANDRAGIRI,
TALUK & DIST: DHARWAD-580001.
b. SHIVANAND S/O MUDUKAPPA GUGGARATTI,
AGE: MAJOR (CORRECT AGE NOT KNOWN),
R/O -DO-
c. DURGAPPA S/O MUDUKAPPA GUGGARATTI,
AGE: MAJOR, (CORRECT AGE NOT KNOWN)
R/O -DO-
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.S.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 RO R3,
SRI.ATUL K.ALUR, ADV. FOR C/R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 27.10.2007 VIDE ANNEXURE-C PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 AND ETC.
IN W.P.No.770/2008
BETWEEN:
SRI.MUDUKAPPA S/O RAMAPPA GUGGARATTI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs.
1. SMT.LAKKAVVA W/O MUDUKAPPA,
AGE: 58 YEARS,
3
2. SRI.SHIVANAND S/O MUDUKAPPA,
AGE: 36 YEARS,
3. SRI.DURGAPPA S/O MUDUKAPPA,
AGE: 32 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT CHANDRAGIRI VILLAGE,
TALUK & DIST: DHARWAD-580 001.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.N.P.VIVEKMEHTA, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD-580 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
DHARWAD SUB DIVISION, DHARWAD.
3. THE TAHSILDAR,
DHARWAD TALUK, DHARWAD.
4. SRI.LAGAMANNA D/O DAKAPPA KAMATI,
AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
RESIDENT OF HONNAPURA,
TALUK & DIST: DHARWAD.
5. SRI.BASAPPA S/O BABU CHIKKANNAVAR,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
6. SRI.SHEKAPPA S/O BABU CHIKKANNAVAR,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
7. SRI.GURUSIDDAPPA S/O BABU CHIKKANNAVAR,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
RESPONDENTS 5TO 7 ARE THE RESIDENT OF
HONNAPURA VILLAGE, TALUK & DIST: DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.S.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3,
4
SRI.MADANMOHAN M.KHANNUR, ADV. FOR R4,
NOTICE TO R5-R7 SERVED)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS FROM THE R1 AND MODIFY THE ORDER OF THE R1
DATED 27.10.2007 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ALLOW THE CLAIM
OF THE PETITIONERS AS PER PTCL ACT, 1978.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The purchasers and the grantees are the petitioners in these petitions. In the petition filed by the purchaser, it is contended that the grantee is not entitled for the benefit under the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'P.T.C.L. Act'), since his caste 'Naika' has been included in the list in the year 1991. As on the date of grant, his caste was not considered in the Scheduled Tribe. Hence, for the purpose of Section 3(B) of the P.T.C.L.Act, he should not be considered as a grantee. The petitioner purchased the land on 08.04.1985 after the completion of stipulated period. Under these circumstances, the learned counsel submits that the order of the Assistant Commissioner and 5 the Deputy Commissioner is bad in law and the sale would have enure to the benefit of the purchaser.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.770/2008 challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that the reasons assigned by him in rejecting the claim of the grantee on the ground that the caste 'Naika' was included in the list only in the year 1991 and he was not a Scheduled Tribe as on the date of grant.
3. The learned Government Pleader supports the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner.
4. The land in Sy.No.117/P-4 of Kambarganavi village, Dharwad Taluk was granted in favour of the petitioners in W.P.No.770/2008 on 10.11.1965 with a condition that the land shall not be alienated within a period of 15 years. The sale took place on 08.04.1985 after the completion of stipulated period. The sale transaction in respect of the land in question taken place after the Act came into force, it contravenes Section 4(2) of the P.T.C.L.Act. Hence, the sale made in favour of the purchaser is 6 void. Hence, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner is in accordance with the provisions of law. But the reasons assigned by the statutory authorities to the effect that community of the grantees were included in the Scheduled Tribe list in the year 1991 is improper and an error is committed by the authorities. The Presidential Notification 1950, in which the caste 'Naika' was included and the same has retrospective effect. Hence, the community of the grantees has to be considered as Scheduled Tribe with effect from 1950. In view of the same, it is to be held that, at the time of grant, the grantees were Scheduled Tribe. The inclusion of several synonyms of 'Naika' communities were classified and included in the year 1991 that does not mean that it is prospective in nature. This question was the subject matter in W.P.No.28263/2004 by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sri.Jayanna Vs. The Deputy Commissioner and Others, disposed of on 03.08.2012 wherein, it has been held that the inclusion of synonyms of 'Naika' is to be as the one having retrospective effect i.e., with effect from the Presidential Notification of 1950. For the convenience, paragraph 14 of the judgment is extracted hereunder.
7
"14. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the original grantee's name was "£ÁAiÀÄPÀ"À in vernacular/Kannada. How this is to be spelt in English is the abiding question that arises even before us. If we translate it as 'Naikda' or 'Nayaka', then it was included in 1950 Presidential enumeration. If we are to translate it as 'Naika' or 'Nayak' then it is to be found in the subsequent amendment of 1991 only. The translation should have been made with greater care by the Assistant Commissioner and thereafter by the Deputy Commissioner. We are certain that the Schedule Tribe is the same, attracting only the variant spelling in the translation. Both the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner have erroneously concluded that since "£ÁAiÀÄPÀ"À (Naika or Nayak) was included as a Schedule Tribe only in 1991, the grantee did not fall within the purview of the PTCL Act and erroneously restored the land to the State. This error would not have manifested had the two authorities perceived the legal position that all entries in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order 1950 original or subsequent are only elucidatory and clarificatory in nature. To sum up, after careful cogitation we are of the conviction that the view expressed by the Division Bench in Krishnappa and Rangaiah has to be preferred.
In these circumstances, assuming that "£ÁAiÀÄPÀ"À was included as a Schedule Tribe in 1991, we shall 8 nevertheless answer the Reference by stating that every inclusion would have retrospective effect and would therefore revert back to the Presidential Notification 1950."
The same holds good for these petitions.
5. With these observations, the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are confirmed. However, the order to the effect that the grantees are Schedule Tribe with effect from 1991, stands set aside and it is held that they are to be considered as Schedule Tribe with effect from Presidential Notification 1950.
6. Accordingly, the petitions stand disposed of. The authorities are directed to resume and restore the land within a period of six months and report the same.
SD/-
JUDGE MBS/-