Karnataka High Court
Nanjamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.12748 OF 2011 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
1 . NANJAMMA
W/O LATE RAJU
AGED 65 YEARS
2 . SHIVALINGAIAH
S/O LATE RAJU
AGED 44 YEARS
3 . PRAKASH
S/O LATE RAJU
AGED 37 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT THORESETTAHALLI,
MADDUR TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. G. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDINGS,
2
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE 560 001.
2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA.
3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MANDYA SUB DIVISION, MANDYA.
4 . B SHIVALINGAIAH
S/O BORAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
THORESETTAHALLI VILLAGE
MADDUR TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. SANDESH KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3
SRI. N.B.N. SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.03.2009 PASSED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN DISPUTE NO. PTCL 1/2002-03
AS PER ANNEX. D AND THE ORDER DATED 28.09.2010
PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN DISPUTE NO. PTCL
08/2009 AS PER ANNEX. E AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO
DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT FOR RESTORATION OF THE LANDS IN
QUESTION; QUASH THE EVICTION NOTICE DATED
30.11.2010 PASSED IN DISPUTE NO.PTCL 1/2-03 ISSUED
UNDER SECTION 39(1) OF THE KARNATAKA LAND
REVENUE ACT, 1964 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS PER
ANNEX.H.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 06.12.2021, COMING ON FOR
3
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 20.03.2009, passed by the respondent No.3 in Dispute No.PTCL 1/2002-03, as per Annexure-D and order dated 28.09.2010, passed by the respondent No.2 in Dispute No.PTCL 8/2009, as per Annexure-E, have filed this writ petition.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ petition are as under:
Land in Sy.No.21 measuring 1 acre 5 guntas was granted on temporary lease in favour of father of respondent No.4 under the "Grow More Foods Scheme" on 18.02.1946 and temporary 'saguvali chit' was issued. The father of respondent No.4 was continuously in possession of the land till it was granted at upset price of Rs.200/- per acre. The 4 Deputy Commissioner exercising powers under Rule 43-J of the Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960 ('the Rules' for short) granted the said land. In the said grant order, no conditions are imposed regarding non-alienation of granted land. The respondent No.4 filed a petition under Section 5 of the PTCL Act alleging that the sale transactions are in violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act. Therefore, respondent No.3 allowed the application filed by respondent No.4 and declared that the sale transactions were hit by the provisions of the PTCL Act and issued a direction to the Tahsildar, Maddur to restore the land in question in favour of respondent No.4. The petitioners aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.3, filed an appeal before respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners vide order dated 28.09.2010.
Hence this writ petition.5
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned orders passed by respondents No.2 and 3 suffers from material irregularity. He further submits that Rule 43-J of the Rules is not applicable to the present case in hand. He further submits that the respondents No.2 and 3 without looking into the records, have passed the impugned order. It is further submitted that the land in question was got regularized by the father of respondent No.4 during undisputed time. He further submits that the respondents No.2 and 3 have failed to note that grant was made under the provisions of Rule 43-J of the Rules and for the grants made under the said Rule, the provisions of the PTCL Act are not applicable. He further submits that the father of the respondent No.4 has deposited the upset price of the value of the land 6 and for such grants, condition for non-alienation could not have been prescribed. Hence, the condition of non-alienation for a period of 15 years from the date of grant has to be ignored. In order to buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of V. N. BABUREDDY & ANR. VS. SMT. VENKATAMMA & ORS., in W.P.No.37475/2011 & Connected Matters, disposed of on 08.12.2017. He further submits that the father of respondent No.4 has filed a written statement in O.S.No.466/1957. In the said written statement, the father of respondent No.4 has clearly admitted that he has credited the required amount and has prayed for confirmation of the grant. He further submits that the land was not a granted land, but in fact it was purchased by the father of respondent No.4. He submits that respondents No.2 and 3 without considering the said aspect, have proceeded to pass 7 the impugned orders. Hence on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the grant was regularized and it is not a granted land for upset price. He further submits that the provisions of the PTCL Act are applicable to the present case in hand. He further submits that respondent No.4 is in possession of the property and the Civil Court has recorded a finding to that effect. He further submits that the submission of learned counsel for petitioners that Rule 43-J of the Rules does not apply to the PTCL Act, is not correct. He further submits that respondents No.2 and 3, on considering the materials on record, are justified in passing the impugned orders. In order to buttress his argument, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of GUNTAIAH & ORS. VS. HAMBAMMA & ORS., reported in (2005) 6 SCC 8
228. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.
6. Perused the records and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
7. It is the case of respondent No.4 that land in question was granted under "Grow more food" scheme and a temporary 'saguvali chit' was issued on 18.02.1946. The father of respondent No.4 sold portion of land in favour of husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioners No.2 and 3 under registered sale deed dated 30.07.1966 and the remaining portion to an extent of 10 guntas under registered sale deed dated 10.10.1967. On the strength of the registered sale deeds, the husband of the petitioner No.1 and father of petitioners No.2 and 3 came in possession of the property in question. After his demise, the petitioners are in possession of the land in question. 9 The respondent No.4 has initiated proceedings under the PTCL Act alleging that the sale transactions are hit by the provisions of the PTCL Act and sought for declaration that the registered sale deeds executed in favour of husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioners No.2 and 3 are null and void and to restore the possession in favour of respondent No.4. On the earlier occasion, the respondent No.3 has dropped the proceedings in Dispute No. PTCL 33/1995-96 on the ground that since the land was regularized, the provisions of the PTCL Act was not applicable. Respondent No.4 preferred an appeal before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.4 and remitted the matter to the respondent No.3 for fresh consideration. After remand, respondent No.3 has allowed the petition filed by respondent No.4. The petitioner aggrieved by the same, has filed the appeal before 10 respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 dismissed the appeal.
8. What is required to be considered in this writ petition is, whether the provisions of the PTCL Act would attract to the grants made under "Grow More Foods Scheme". As discussed above, land was granted in favour of father of respondent No.4 under "Grow More Foods Scheme" in the year 1946 and the said land was granted under the upset price being fixed at Rs.200/- per acre by the Deputy Commissioner in the year 1961. The father of respondent No.4 paid upset price and secured the title to the said property in his name, which document is relied upon by him as a 'Grant Certificate' and 'Saguvali Chit'. As far as payment of upset price is concerned, the father of respondent No.4 has admitted the same in the written statement filed in O.S.No.466/1957. The petitioners have produced 11 copy of judgment passed in the aforesaid suit, vide Annexure-G. The Trial Court has recorded a finding that, "According to the condition in Ex.D3, the grantee is entitled to get the grant confirmed in his favour after the expiry of the period of 5 years. The defendant has credited the required amount and has prayed for confirmation of the grant". From the perusal of the judgment passed in the aforesaid suit, it is clear that father of the respondent No.4 admitted that he has credited the required amount and prayed for confirmation of grant. The said fact has not been denied by the respondent No.4. The finding recorded by the Trial Court in the said judgment would clearly indicate that, what is given to the father of respondent No.4 is by way of conveyance and he was put in possession and enjoyment of the same as the absolute owner which is supported by the conditions stipulated in the 'Grant Certificate'. The respondent 12 submits that the land is a granted land and provisions of the PTCL Act are applicable. Further it is submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of GUNTAIAH (SUPRA) held that grant of agricultural lands to the member of SC and ST at a price lower than the market price or free of cost, initially on a temporary lease and later permanently under Rule 43-J with a condition that the grantee shall not alienate the lands to the third parties for a period of 15 years. If alienation is made, any breach of conditions restricting the third party purchaser cannot challenge such a condition as void and such transfer would not convey any right, title or interest to the purchaser by virtue of Section 4 of the PTCL Act.
9. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of V.N.BABU REDDY (SUPRA) has held as under:
"15. Before going in to aforesaid aspect what is required to be seen is the so called Grant 13 Certificates which are issued to original grantees in the year 1951 during the pendency of Grow More Food Scheme under aforesaid three notifications which were issued initially in the year 1942 i.e., 11.4.1942 followed by another notification dated 13.6.1942 and with the last of the notifications dated
10.8.1953. When said notifications are looked into, the manner in which the grant is made is clearly seen. As discussed supra, lands which are granted in favour of original grantees is the excess fallow land which could be put to cultivation by developing the same.
16. xxx
17. Therefore, in the instant cases to remove any ambiguity with reference to aforesaid position, this Court would rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court, which is referred to by the learned Senior Counsel Sri.S.K.V.Chalapathy in the matter of B.K.Muniraju -vs- State of Karnataka, reported in 2008(4) SCC 451, wherein at page 455 the Apex Court has held as under:
"18. The document in question which is filed as Annexure-P3, has been styled or titled as "certificate of grant". In order to know the real nature of the document, one has to look 14 into the recitals of the document and not the title of the document. The intention is to be gathered from the recitals in the deed, the conduct of the parties and the evidence on record. It is settled law that the question of construction of a document is to be decided by finding out the intention of the executant, firstly, from a comprehensive reading of the terms of the document itself, and then, by looking into - to the extent permissible - the prevailing circumstances which persuaded the author of the document to execute it. With a view to ascertain the nature of a transaction, the document has to be read as a whole. A sentence or term used may not be determinative of the real nature of transaction. Reference in this regard can be made to the following cases (1) Vidhyadhar
-vs- Manikrao [(1999) 3 SCC 573], (2) Subbegowda -vs- Thimmegowda [(2004) 9 SCC 734] and (3) Bishwanath Prasad Singh -vs-
Rajendra Prasad [(2006) 4 SCC 432]. "
18. With this it is clearly seen that though Grant Certificates issued in favour of Kenchappa, A.K.Mada and Chikaida referred to said documents as Grant Certificates, infact they were deeds of conveyance in their favour to an extent of 2 acres each which they were holding absolutely as on the date of sale which has taken place on 7.10.1982, 29.10.1987 and subsequently, on 15.10.2003. In that view of the matter, lands in question not being granted lands, same being absolute property of the 15 grantees, who are vendors, no conditions could have been imposed by the Government and in the absence of any condition being imposed on the usage and enjoyment of said lands, non alienable period which is provided to all lands which are granted under lease subsequent to 1969 being 15 years from the date of grant would not apply to the lands in question as they are the lands of the grantees with absolute title from the day they have paid the upset price and got the documents of title registered in their name. Therefore, the findings of the authorities, namely Assistant Commissioner and Special Deputy Commissioner contrary to the aforesaid legal position in the proceedings before them, in holding that said lands are granted lands, are erroneous. "
10. From the perusal of the aforesaid judgment, this Court held that if the land is granted under "Grow More Foods Scheme" at an upset price, then the said land will not fall within the definition of 'granted land'. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has considered the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 16 GUNTAIAH'S case (supra). The Division Bench of this Court in the case of MUNIRAJU & ORS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. in Writ Appeal No.4127-4134/2013 disposed of on 18.03.2015, held as under:
"WHEN the land is taken under 'Grow More Food Scheme', the lessee is not required to pay rent or lease for the first year and he was required to pay half of the assessment of the land for the subsequent years. In the circumstances, we are of the view that if the land was granted to Marappa on lease under 'Grow More Food Scheme' and thereafter it is confirmed to him, it cannot be considered as a land granted to him considering him as Scheduled Caste or a depressed person."
11. Applying the principles laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, the respondents No.2 and 3 have failed to consider the said aspect and proceeded to pass the impugned orders holding that 17 the land granted in favour of father of respondent No.4 at an upset price falls within the definition of 'granted land'. The impugned orders passed by the respondents No.2 and 3 are arbitrary and contrary to the law laid down by this Court in V.N.BABU REDDY AND MUNIRAJU (SUPRA).
12. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:
Order The writ petition is allowed.
The impugned orders passed by
respondents No.2 and 3 are set aside.
SD/-
JUDGE
RD