Karnataka High Court
Sri R Mohandas S/O Sri Ratnaswamy vs The Asst Commissioner on 10 January, 2025
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:1005
WP No. 7894 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 7894 OF 2011 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI R MOHANDAS
S/O SRI RATNASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST
R/AT HAREENAHALLI VILLAGE,
HANAGODU TALUMYSORE DISTRICT
R/BY HIS SPECIAL POWEROF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SRI. CHELUVANAYA(ALIAS) SELVANAYAGAN
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT HAREENAHALLI VILLAGE AT
AND POST HANAGODU HOBLI,
HUSUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT.
Digitally ...PETITIONER
signed by
KIRAN (BY SRI. L.S.CHIKKANAGOUDAR,ADVOCATE)
KUMAR R
Location:
HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1 . THE ASST COMMISSIONER
HUNSUR SUB-DIVISION
HUNSUR, MYSORE DISTRICT.
2 . THE DY. COMMISSIONER
MYSORE
3 . THE TAHSILDAR
HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:1005
WP No. 7894 of 2011
4 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S.BUILDING ANNEXE,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560001.
5 . SRI K NAGARAJ
S/O LATE SRI. KENCHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49YEARS,
OCC: NOT KNOWN,
R/AT HUNDIMALE VILLAGE,
BILIKARA HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT
...RESPONDENTS
(BYSMT.SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-4; SRI. AVIN TIPPANNA., HANAMAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R-5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI & QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEXURE-H DATED:01.12.2007 PASSED BY R-1, TO THE EXTENT THE SAME DIRECTS R-3 TO ACCEPT THE UPSET PRICE FOR THE LAND MEASURING 1 ACRE 22 GUNTAS IN SY.No.79 [RE-SY.No.32] OF HAREENAHALLI VILLAGE, HANAGODU HOBLI HUSUR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT AND TO ISSUE PROSSESSION CERTIFICATE TO R-5 & TO EVICT THE PETITIONER FROM 1 ACRE 22 GUNTAS OF LAND IN THE AFORESAID SY.No. BY FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURE PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 39 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.12.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA -3- NC: 2025:KHC:1005 WP No. 7894 of 2011 CAV ORDER The records of the case reveal the following facts:
1. On 26.05.1950, an extent of 02 acres in Sy.No.79 (new Sy.No.32) of Hareenahalli village, Hanagodu Hobli, Hunsur Taluk, Mysore District, was granted to Kenchaiah.
2. On 26.07.1956, pursuant to the order of grant, a Saguvali chit was also issued in favour of Kenchaiah in respect of 02 acres of land.
3. On 19/20.04.1962, the Government accorded its sanction for confirmation of an extent of 01 acre 22 guntas of land in Sy.No.32 in favour of Kenchaiah for an upset price Rs.15/- per acre and subject to recovery of back-assessment from the year of grant, since it was found that Kenchaiah was in excess enjoyment of this 01 acre 22 guntas at the time of pucca phodi, over and above the originally granted land of 02 acres.-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:1005 WP No. 7894 of 2011
4. However, despite the sanction, Kenchaiah did not pay this upset price of Rs.15/- per acre nor did he pay the back-assessment from the year of grant.
5. Consequently, despite the sanction, as the conditions were not complied with, no order of grant and saguvali chit was issued to him to this extent of 01 acre 22 guntas.
6. As per the then prevailing rule, the lands granted free of cost contained a prohibition that the lands granted shall not be alienated forever.
7. On 20.06.1969, despite the bar for non-alienation, Kenchaiah proceeded to sell 02 acres of land that had been granted to him to one Kari Nayaka.
8. The purchaser--Kari Nayaka in turn sold 02 acres to one P.Shivaiah and P.Shivaiah in turn sold the land to one P.Venkatesha.
9. In the year 1984-85, P.Venkatesha re-conveyed the property of 02 acres in favour of Kari Nayaka, who -5- NC: 2025:KHC:1005 WP No. 7894 of 2011 had originally purchased the property from Kenchaiah.
10. On 28.06.1989, Kari Nayaka (i.e., original purchaser) sold an extent of 03 acres 22 guntas in favour of the petitioner herein.
11. It may be pertinent to state here that Kari Nayaka had purchased only 02 acres from Kenchaiah, however, he had sold 03 acres 22 guntas in Sy.No.32 to the petitioner.
12. In the year 2001-02, Kenchaiah's son Nagaraju made an application for resumption as provided under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act/PTCL Act' for brevity). This application for resumption was however in respect of 03 acres 22 guntas. In this application, Nagaraju stated as follows:
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:1005 WP No. 7894 of 2011 "¥Àj²µÀÖeÁw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Àj²µÀÖªÀUÀ𠤢ðµÀÖ ¨sÆ À «ÄUÀ¼À ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ¤µÉÃzÀ PÁ¬ÄzÉ PÀ®A 5gÀ jÃvÁå ¸À°è¹zÀ Cfð:
CfðzÁgÀgÀ vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÁzÀ ºÀ£ÀUÆ
É ÃqÀÄ ºÉÆç½,
ºÀjãÀºÀ½î UÁæªÄÀ zÀ ¯ÉÃmïPÉAZÀÀAiÀÄå ©£ï dªÀgÀAiÀÄå,
¥ÀgÀ²µÀÖeÁwAiÀiÁzÀ D¢PÀ£ÁðlPÀ eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀªÀgÁVzÀÄÝ,
CªÀjUÉ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ ºÀjãÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ
dªÀiÁ§A¢UÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 79, jøÀªÉð £ÀA:32 gÀ°è r.¦.ºÉZï 68:52-53 gÀ DzÉñÀ zÀAvÉ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ JPÀgÉ E¥ÀàvÉÛgÀqÀÄ UÀÄAmÉ (3JPÀgÉ 22 UÀÄAmÉ) d«ÄãÀÄ zÀgÀSÁ¸ÀÄÛ ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀ¨sÁgÉ ¤µÉÃzÀ µÀgÀvÀÄÛ «¢ü¹ ªÀÄAdÄgÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. ¸ÀzÀj PÉAZÀAiÀÄå£ÀªÀgÄÀ C¸ÀºÀAiÀÄPÀvɬÄAzÀ ¥ÀgÀ¨sÁgÉ ¤µÉÃzÀ CªÀ¢üAiÉƼÀUÉ ªÀÄÄvÀÄÛgÁAiÀÄ£ÀºÆ É ¸ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ CfÓÃUËqÀjUÉ ¨sÉÆÃUÀå ªÀiÁrzÀgÄÀ . £ÀAvÀgÀ F ¨sÉÆÃUÀåzÀ ºÀt wÃj¸À®Ä ºÀ£ÀUÆ É ÃqÀÄ ºÉÆç½ ºÀjãÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¹zÀÝ£ÁAiÀÄPÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ PÀj£ÁAiÀÄPÀgÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀéwÛ£À°è JgÀqÀÄ JPÀgÉ (2-00) ªÀiÁvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 20-6-1969 gÀAzÀÄ £ÉÆÃAzÁªÀtÂAiÀiÁUÀzÀ PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj PÀj£ÁAiÀÄPÀ ¦. ²ªÀAiÀÄå ©£ï £ÀAd¥Àà¤UÉ PÀæAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj ¦. ²ªÀAiÀÄå J¸ï.ªÉAPÀmÉÃ¸ï ©£ï ¸ÀtÚ¥Àà£ÀªÀjUÉ PÀæAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀgÄÀ . ¸ÀzÀj J¸ï. ªÉAPÀmÉñÀgÀªÀgÀÄ ¥ÀÄ£À: ªÀÄÆ® PÀæAiÀÄzÁgÀgÁzÀ ¹zÀÝ£ÁAiÀÄPÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ ºÉZï.J¸ï. PÀj£ÁAiÀÄPÀjUÉ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁrzÀgÄÀ . ¸ÀzÀj PÀj£ÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ PÀæAiÀÄ ªÀiÁr JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÄÀ FUÀ ¸ÀéwÛ£À ¸Áé¢üãÁ£ÀĨsÀªÀzÀ°ègÄÀ vÁÛgÉ.
CfðzÁgÀgÀ vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ PÉêÀ® JgÀqÀÄ JPÀgÉ «¹ÛÃtðªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁrzÀÝgÀÄ. JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ zÀħ𮠪ÀUÀðzÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀAa¹ 3 JPÀgÉ 22 UÀÄAmÉAiÀÄ ZÀPÀÄ̧A¢ü £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹ DPÀæªÀiªÀÁV -7- NC: 2025:KHC:1005 WP No. 7894 of 2011 MAzÀÄ JPÀgÉ E¥ÀàvÉÛgÀqÀÄ UÀÄAmÉ d«Ää£À ¸Áé¢üãÁ£ÀĨsÀªÀzÀ°ègÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ zÀħ𮠪ÀUÀðzÀªÀgÁVzÀÄÝ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ eÁÕ£ÀªÅÀ ¼ÀîªÀgÀ®è ºÁUÀÆ PÀÆ° ªÀiÁr fêÀ£À ¸ÁV¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ.
PÁgÀtUÀ¼ÀÄ
1) F d«ÄãÀÄ ¥Àj²µÀÖeÁwAiÀĪÀjUÉ ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ d«ÄãÀÄ.
2) ¥ÀgÀ¨sÁgÉ ¤µÉÃzÀ CªÀ¢üAiÉƼÀUÉ ªÀiÁgÁlªÁVzÉ.
3) F ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ¦.n.¹.J¯ï PÁ¬ÄzÉAiÀÄ ªÁå¦ÛUÉ M¼À¥ÀqÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
4) PÉêÀ® JgÀqÀÄ JPÀgÉ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁrzÀÝgÄÀ DPÀæªÄÀ ªÁV CfðzÁgÀjUÉ £ÁåAiÀÄAiÀÄÄvÀªÁV ¸ÉÃjzÀÝ MAzÀÄ JPÀgÉ E¥ÀàvÉÛgÀqÀÄ UÀÄAmÉ d«Ää£À ¸Áé¢üãÀzÀ°è JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ EgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
5) F ¸ÀéwÛ£À ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DPÀæªÄÀ ¸Áé¢üãÀ PÁ£ÀƤ£À zÀȶÖAiÀÄ°è ¹AzsÄÀ ªÁzÀÄzÀ®è.
¥ÁæxÀð£É:
WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀ£ÄÀ ß CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀéwÛ£À ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ JgÀqÄÀ JPÀgÉ d«Ää£À PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvæU À À¼À£ÀÄß C¹AzsÀÄ JAzÀÄ WÉÆö¹ J¯Áè jÃwAiÀÄ IÄt¨sÁgÀUÀ½AzÀ «ªÀÄÄQÛUÉƽ¹ CfðzÁgÀjUÉ ªÀÄgÀÄ ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA. CfðzÁgÀjUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ G½PÉ MAzÀÄ JPÀgÉ E¥ÀàvÉÛgÀqÄÀ UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÄÀ ß DPÀæªÀĪÁV ¸Áé¢üãÁ£ÀĨsÀªÀzÀ°ègÄÀ ªÀ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀjAzÀ ©r¹ CfðzÁgÀjUÉ ¸Áé¢üãÀ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ CvÀåAvÀ «£ÀªÀÄæªÁV £ÉʸÀVðPÀ £ÁåAiÀĸÀªÄÀ ävÀ zÀȶ֬ÄAzÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ¥Áæyð¹PÉƼÀÄîvÁÛgÉ."
(Emphasis supplied) -8- NC: 2025:KHC:1005 WP No. 7894 of 2011
13. As could be seen from the application for resumption, it was admitted by Nagaraju that an extent of only 02 acres had been sold by his father. It is also stated by Nagaraju that Kari Nayaka had sold 03 acres 22 guntas, which was involved in the application to the petitioner who was in possession of the said land.
14. In other words, Nagaraju had admitted that Kari Nayaka had sold the property to the petitioner herein in the year 1989, and as a consequence of the sale, the petitioner was in possession of 03 acres 22 guntas. To put it differently, Nagaraju admitted that he was not in possession of the entire extent of 03 acres 22 guntas.
15. The Assistant Commissioner, after notifying the petitioner, proceeded to pass an order of resumption in respect of an extent of 03 acres 22 guntas that had been sought for by Nagaraju by its order dated 15.11.2003.
16. The petitioner, being aggrieved, preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, by an order dated 15.11.2005 allowed the appeal in the following terms:
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:1005 WP No. 7894 of 2011 "¥Àæ²ßvÀ ºÀÄt¸ÀÆgÀÄ G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À DzÉñÀ ¦n¹J¯ï.¹DgÀÄ.59/2001-02 ¢£ÁAPÀ 15-11-2003gÀ°è PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Àj²µÀÖ ¥ÀAUÀqÀUÀ¼ÀÄ (ºÀd¥À¤) PÁAiÉÄÝ 1978gÀ «¢ 5(1)(©)gÀ jÃvÁå 3-22 JPÀgÉ «¹ÛÃtðzÀ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÆ® ªÀÄAdÆjzÁgÀgÀ ªÁgÀ¸ÄÀ zÁgÀjUÉ ªÀÄgÀÄ ¸Áé¢üãÀ ¤ÃqÀĪÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ºÉÆgÀr¹zÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝUÉƽ¹, ªÀÄÆ® ªÀÄAdÆjzÁgÀgÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀħzÀÝ ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ «ªÁ¢vÀ d«Ää£À 2-00 JPÀgÉ «¹ÃtðªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀæ ªÀÄgÀÄ ¸Áé¢üãÀ ¤ÃqÀĪÀAvÉ ºÁUÀÆ G½zÀ «¹ÛÃtðªÀ£ÄÀ ß vÀPëÀt¢AzÀ eÁjUÉ §gÀĪÀAvÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¸ÀÄ¥À¢ðUÉ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ¨sÆ À ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½UÀ¼À jÃvÁå PÀæªÀĪÀ»¸À®Ä vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgï ºÀÄt¸ÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀjUÉ ¤zÉÃð²¹ DzÉò¹zÉ."
17. Thus, the Deputy Commissioner modified the order of resumption and confined it only to an extent of 02 acres which had been granted to Kenchaiah and he directed resumption of an extent of 01 acre 22 guntas to be recovered immediately to the possession of the Government and thereafter to be disposed under the Land Grant Rules.
18. This order of the Deputy Commissioner restricting the order of resumption to 02 acres was challenged both by Nagaraju and by the petitioner in W.P. No.573 of 2006 and W.P. No.5553 of 2007 (SC-ST). This Court after
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1005 WP No. 7894 of 2011 hearing proceeded to pass a common order on 11.04.2007 allowing the writ petitions and setting aside the order of the Deputy commissioner only insofar as it related to the direction of the Deputy Commissioner to forfeit 01 acre 22 guntas of land in favour of the State and also the order of the Assistant Commissioner in respect of the sale transaction in respect of 01 acre 22 guntas. This Court, ultimately, remitted the matter to the Assistant Commissioner with a direction to him to consider the matter afresh in respect of 01 acre 22 guntas by taking into consideration the order of the Government dated 19/20.04.1962.
19. It has to be stated here that the order of resumption in respect of 02 acres of land which had been granted in the year 1950 and was also the subject matter of the Saguvali Chit, was confirmed and this order has attained finality.
20. In other words, the order of resumption in respect of 02 acres which had been originally granted to Kenchaiah and was ordered to be resumed by the Assistant
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1005 WP No. 7894 of 2011 Commissioner and confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner has been accepted by the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner's claim over the original extent of 02 acres would not survive for consideration.
21. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the Assistant Commissioner conducted an enquiry and proceeded to pass an order dated 01.12.2007 in the following terms:
"DzÀgÀÆ CfðzÁgÀgÀ vÀAzÉ PÉAZÀAiÀÄå EªÀjUÉ ªÉÄîÌAqÀAvÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀƪÁð£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ªÉÄÃgÉ zÀgÀSÁ¸ÀÄÛ ªÀÄAdÆgÁVzÀÝgÀÆ, CfðzÁgÀgÀ vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀjUÉ F d«ÄäUÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ «¢ü¹zÀ «zÁAiÀÄPÀ QªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉƧ®UÀ£ÄÀ ß ¥ÁªÀw¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÁUÀĪ½ aÃn ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. F PÁgÀt CfðzÁgÀjUÉ zÀgÀSÁ¸ÀÄÛ ªÀÄAdÆgÁVgÀĪÀ d«Ää£À°è ¦ n ¹ J¯ï PÁ¬ÄzÉ PÀ®A 5 (3) gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¨sÀÆ ªÀÄAdÆjzÁgÀgÀÄ CxÀªÀ CªÀgÀ ªÁgÀ¸ÄÀ zÁgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹ ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¸Áé¢üãÀzÀ°ègÀ®Ä CªÀPÁ±À«gÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
CfðzÁgÀgÀ vÀAzÉ EªÀjUÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÅÀ ¨sÆ À ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¢¸ÉAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀƪÁð£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ¤ÃrgÀĪÀAvÉ ºÁUÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj DzÉñÀzÀ°è ¤¢üðµÀÖ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀ «zÁAiÀÄPÀ ªÉƧ®UÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¹PÉÆAqÀÄ «ªÁ¢vÀ d«ÄäUÉ ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½ aÃn ¤ÃqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀÆPÀÛªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¦ n ¹ J¯ï PÁ¬ÄzÉ PÀ®A 4 (1) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ (2) DPÀ¶ð¸À¢zÀÝgÆ À , CfðzÁgÀjUÉ ¨sÆ À ªÀÄAdÆgÁwAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀ d«Ää£À°è
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1005 WP No. 7894 of 2011 CPÀæªÀÄ ¸Áé¢üãÀ ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ£ÄÀ ß RįÁè ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAd¸ÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ J¯Áè CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß CªÀ¯ÉÆÃQ¹ F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ DzÉñÀ.
DzÉñÀ ºÀÄt¸ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ºÀjãÀºÀ½î UÁæªÄÀ zÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.32 gÀ°è 1 JPÀgÉ 22 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¦ n ¹ J¯ï PÁ¬ÄzÉ Cr ©r¹zÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ PÉÆÃj CfðzÁgÀgÄÀ ¸À°è¹zÀ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß wgÀ¸ÌÀ j¹ DzÉò¹zÉ. F d«ÄãÀ£ÄÀ ß ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ ¸ÀASÉå R D LND 62 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 19/20-4-1962 gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ CfðzÁgÀgÀ vÀAzÉ PÉAZÀAiÀÄå EªÀjAzÀ «zÁAiÀÄPÀ QªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉƧ®UÀ£ÄÀ ß ¥ÁªÀw¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¨sÆ À ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¢¸ÉAiÀÄ°è ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀĪÀ DzÉñÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ ¸ÀzÀj DzÉñÀzÀ°è ¤¢üðµÀÖ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀ ªÉƧ®UÀ£ÄÀ ß ¥ÁªÀw¹PÉÆAqÀÄ CfðzÁgÀjUÉ ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½ aÃn ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ F d«Ää£À CPÀæªÀÄ ¸Áé¢ü£ÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¨sÆ À PÀAzÁAiÀÄ PÁ¬ÄzÉ PÀ®A 39 gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ RįÁè ¥Àr¹ CfðzÁgÀjUÉ ªÀÄgÀĸÁé¢üãÀ ªÀ»¸À®Ä ºÀÄt¸ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÄÀ vÀºÀ¹¯ÁÝgÀjUÉ ¤zÉÃð²¹zÉ."
22. As could be seen from the above, the Assistant Commissioner recorded a finding that pursuant to the sanction order of the Government dated 19/20.04.1962, the upset price had not been remitted and the saguvali chit has also not been issued, but the Assistant Commissioner recorded a finding that in view of this sanction order, no person could claim to be in possession by virtue of Section 5(3) of the PTCL Act. The Assistant Commissioner thereafter has gone on to direct the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1005 WP No. 7894 of 2011 Tahasildar to accept the upset price as ordered on 19/20.04.1962 and thereafter issue a Saguvali Chit.
23. Thus, in the year 2007 i.e., nearly 45 years after the order of sanction (19/20.04.1962) had been made, for the first time, in a proceeding for resumption under the PTCL Act, the Assistant Commissioner while deciding an application for resumption directed the Tahasildar to accept the upset price, issue a saguvali chit and thereafter evict the purchaser and put the applicant back in possession. The Assistant Commissioner therefore basically directed that the sanction order of the Government of the year 1962 should be implemented in the year 2007 by accepting the upset price and by issuing a saguvali chit and that too in a proceeding for resumption.
24. It has to be noted here that in a proceeding for resumption, the Assistant Commissioner is required to determine whether the land in question, in respect of which resumption application was filed, was in fact
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1005 WP No. 7894 of 2011 granted and has been sold in contravention of the terms of the grant.
25. The Assistant Commissioner in a proceeding for resumption cannot obviously implement an order of grant and that too nearly 45 years after the grant had been made.
26. Being aggrieved by this order of the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.20103 of 2007 (SC/ST) before this Court without preferring an appeal and consequently, this Court dismissed the writ petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal.
27. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner by an order dated 02.11.2010 has dismissed the appeal upholding the order of the Assistant Commissioner.
28. Being aggrieved by these orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, the present writ petition has been filed.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1005 WP No. 7894 of 2011
29. Sri.L.S.Chikkanagoudar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the land in question could never have been considered as a granted land since no order of grant had actually been passed and no saguvali chit had been issued. He submitted that a mere prior sanction of the Government for grant would not amount to a grant by itself, unless firstly, the terms of prior approval are adhered to i.e., the upset price paid and also back assessment is also made and secondly, the granting authority had passed an order of grant and issued a saguvali chit.
30. He submitted that these two vital and essential ingredients in respect of 01 acre 22 guntas of land was not forthcoming, even according to the authorities, and thus the entire proceeding for resumption in respect of 01 acre 22 guntas on the premise that it was a granted land, was without jurisdiction.
31. He submitted that the Assistant Commissioner in a resumption proceeding under the PTCL Act has fundamentally directed the grant of the land by directing
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1005 WP No. 7894 of 2011 the Tahsildar to act in accordance with the prior sanction granted in the year 1962 i.e., 45 years prior to the passing of this order. He submitted that this order basically was an order of grant which was made for the first time and that too in a resumption proceeding and therefore the order of the Assistant Commissioner, which has been erroneously confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, both cannot be sustained.
32. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner had accepted the order of resumption in respect of 02 acres and since, he was in possession of the remaining 01 acre 22 guntas of land, he had made an application for regularization and the same is pending consideration. But, by virtue of the impugned orders, this application is sought to be frustrated by issuing a direction to grant the land in favour of Kenchaiah's son--Nagaraju by collecting the upset price and by issuing a saguvali chit which was wholly impermissible.
33. He also submitted that the assertion of Nagaraju that his father and he were in possession of 01 acre 22 guntas
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1005 WP No. 7894 of 2011 because they had sold only 02 acres, cannot be accepted in light of the clear admission of Nagaraju made in his application for resumption that the petitioner was in possession of 03 acres 22 guntas of land.
34. Sri.Avin Tippanna, learned counsel appearing for K.Nagaraju--son of the grantee, submitted that though initially the grant was for 02 acres in the year 1950, as the authorities had noticed that the grantee was in excess possession of 01 acre 22 guntas, it had sought for the sanction of the Government for grant of this 01 acre 22 guntas and the Government had also accepted this request and had passed an order of grant on 19/20.04.1962 and therefore, there was an order of grant in favour of Kenchaiah.
35. He submitted that merely because the terms of the order were not complied, the land in question would not lose the nature of the granted land and this land had been alienated, Nagaraju being the legal heir of the grantee, had a right to seek for resumption.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1005 WP No. 7894 of 2011
36. He contended that the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner were justified in passing the impugned orders and they were formalizing the order of grant by implementing the prior sanction granted by the Government and therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned orders.
37. As already observed above, the extent of 02 acres which had been originally granted, has already stood concluded by virtue of the order of the Deputy Commissioner on confirming the order of resumption in respect of 02 acres which has been affirmed by this Court and has not been challenged by the petitioner. It is therefore clear that the extent of 02 acres which is ordered to be resumed has been in contravention of the terms of the grant, has attained finality and this writ petition is confined only in respect of the remaining extent of 01 acre 22 guntas.
38. The admitted facts are that only an extent of 02 acres had been granted to Kenchaiah in the year 1950 and a saguvali chit was also issued only in respect of these 02 acres on 26.09.1950. It is no doubt true that 12 years
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1005 WP No. 7894 of 2011 after this grant, the authorities have noticed that Kenchaiah was in possession of 01 acre 22 guntas in addition to 02 acres of land granted to him and have proposed to the Government for according sanction to the confirmation of this extent of 01 acre 22 guntas.
39. The authorities have also no doubt found that the Government did accord its sanction for confirmation of the extent of 01 acre 22 guntas, by passing an order on 19/20.04.1962.
40. The order of sanction for confirmation which is produced at Annexure 'R1' indicates that the sanction was subject to Kenchaiah paying an upset price of Rs.15/- per acre and also subject to the recovery of the back assessment from the year of grant i.e., from 1950.
41. It is not in dispute that Kenchaiah did not abide by the terms of this sanction order and neither paid the upset price of Rs.15/- per acre nor paid the back assessment from 1950.
42. It has to be noticed here that the sanction accorded for confirmation of an extent of 01 acre 22 guntas in favour
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1005 WP No. 7894 of 2011 of Kenchaiah subject to fulfilment of two conditions will not translate into an actual grant unless the conditions are complied with and the granting authority proceeds to issue an order of grant and also issues a saguvali chit.
43. Until an order of grant is made and a saguvali chit is issued, in law, the sanction accorded for confirmation would only remain a sanction and it would not translate into a grant. A grant becomes effective only when the requirements of the grant are actually complied with.
44. In the instant case, firstly, Kenchaiah had to pay Rs.15/-
per acre as upset price and secondly, was also required to pay the back assessment from 1950. Admittedly, neither of these conditions has been met. Furthermore, the authorities also did not act upon the sanction and issue an order of grant or a saguvali chit in favour of Kenchaiah.
45. In light of these undisputable facts, it is clear that the extent of 01 acre 22 guntas of land was not granted to Kenchaiah, as contemplated under the Land Grant Rules and there was only a sanction for the grant.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1005 WP No. 7894 of 2011
46. If the land has not been actually granted as required under the Rules culminating in the issue of a Saguvali chit, such a land cannot be construed as a granted land. Consequently, in respect of such land, which is not a granted land as defined under the PTCL Act, it is obvious that no application for resumption can be entertained for resumption under the provisions of the PTCL Act.
47. However, the Assistant Commissioner has embarked upon a very strange procedure in a proceeding for resumption, which presupposes that the land in question was a granted land. The Assistant commissioner has issued a direction to the Tahasildar to accept the upset price which was levied in the year 1962 and has directed for issuance of saguvali chit. In other words, in the year 2007, the Assistant Commissioner has directed the Tahasildar to act upon the order of sanction of the year 1962 and accept the upset price and issue a saguvali chit.
48. Basically, in a proceeding under the PTCL Act, the Assistant Commissioner has virtually directed that the land to be granted for the first time and has immediately
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1005 WP No. 7894 of 2011 thereafter, in the very same order directed the land to be resumed. This procedure adopted is not only strange but virtually patently illegal and totally without jurisdiction. The Deputy Commissioner without noticing that the Assistant Commissioner lacked the inherent jurisdiction to direct the Tahasildar to accept the upset price after 45 years of the sanction had been accorded, has confirmed the same.
49. It may also be pertinent to state here that, as already extracted above, in the very application for resumption filed by Nagaraju, he had clearly admitted that the petitioner was in possession of 03 acres 22 juntas. In the light of this admission, the observation of the Assistant Commissioner that the petitioner could not have been in possession is firstly incorrect. Consequently, his observation that the possession of the petitioner cannot be construed as lawful possession by virtue of section 5(3) of the PTCL Act is also misconceived.
50. In order to attract the provisions of Section 5(3) of the PTCL Act, there must be a land which has been granted to
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1005 WP No. 7894 of 2011 the applicant. It is therefore clear that the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner cannot be sustained and they are accordingly to be quashed.
51. In order to ascertain whether the petitioner was in actual possession of 01 acre 22 guntas of land, the Government was directed to secure instructions and the learned Additional Government Advocate has placed on record a letter of the Tahasildar, the Mahazar drawn up and the report of the Revenue Inspector and the Village Administrative Officer, in which it is stated that Geeta-- wife of Salomanraj, and Selvanayagan are in possession.
52. It is noticed that Selvanayagan is none other than the power of attorney holder of the petitioner herein and it is therefore clear that the petitioner is in possession of the extent of 01 acre 22 guntas.
53. A sketch is also enclosed indicating that Nagaraju son of Kenchaiah is in possession of 02 acres and in respect of the remaining 01 acre 22 guntas, which is marked in pink colour, Geeta and Selvanayagan are in possession and
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1005 WP No. 7894 of 2011 have raised 350 areca nut trees and 17 coconut trees, and one borewell and also have two residential houses in the said property.
54. It is therefore clear that as per the record, Nagaraju is not in possession of 01 acre 22 guntas of land, but it is the power of attorney holder of the petitioner is in possession.
55. In light of the above, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and the same are accordingly quashed and it is held that the proceedings for resumption in respect of 01 acre 22 guntas of land in Sy.No.32 was wholly without jurisdiction, since the said land cannot be construed as a granted land.
56. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
Sd/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 93