Karnataka High Court
Smt Avvamma vs The Deputy Commissioner on 1 August, 2014
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
1
W.P.16454/10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF AUGUST 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.16454/2010 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
SMT.AVVAMMA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
W/O M .ABDULLA, MUSLIM, ADULT,
R/AT NAVOOR PALKE HOUSE,
NAVOOR POST AND VILLAGE,
BELTHANGADY TALUK.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI R.KOTHWAL, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
D.K. MANGALORE.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
D.K MANGALORE.
3. SMT. SUNDATI,
W/O LINGAPPA NAIK,
HINDU, ADULT,
R/AT NAVOOR PALKE HOUSE,
NAVOOR POST AND VILLAGE,
BELTHANGADY TALUK.
4. SRI ABUBAKKAT,
S/O ABDUL RAHIMAN,
MUSLIM, ADULT,
R/AT NAVOOR PALKE HOUSE,
NAVOOR POST AND VILLAGE,
BELTHANGADY TALUK.
5. TAHSILDAR, BELTHANGADI,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI I.THARANATH POOJARY, AGA FOR R-1, 2 & 5; SMT.
JAYANTHI S., ADV.FOR R-3; A.KESHAVA BHAT, ADV. FOR R-4)
2
W.P.16454/10
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.03.2010 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.1 PROFUCED AT ANNEXURE K & ALLOW THE
APPEAL DATED 16.02.2010 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE
RESPONDENT NO.1, WHICH IS MARKED AS ANNEXURE J.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
On 25.07.2014, the following order was passed:
"There is no dispute that the 3rd respondent's husband, member of the Schedule Tribe, was granted 4 acres 75 cents in Sy.No.2/3A2 of Belthangady Village, and issued with a Grant Certificate dt. 2/11/1983, after the coming into force of the Karnataka SC & ST (PTCL) Act, 1978 (for short the 'Act'), with effect from 1/1/1979. Petitioner's vendor in title, the 4th respondent, is said to have instituted O.S.No.141/98 before the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Belthangady, D.K., arraigning the 3rd respondent's husband as defendant, for a declaration that he had perfected his title to the said land by way of adverse possession, whence the said court, by decree dt. 30/7/1998 - Annex.E, allowed 3 W.P.16454/10 the suit as prayed for and declared the 4th respondent as having perfected his title by way of adverse possession. In the premise of such a decree, petitioner is said to have purchased 1 acre out of 4 acres 75 cents under a sale deed dt. 24/5/1999 executed by the 4th respondent.
The 3rd respondent, wife of the grantee, having initiated proceeding under Sec.5 of the Act, for restitution of the lands in question, at the first instance, the Asst. Commissioner rejected the claim, which when carried in an appeal, the Deputy Commissioner, by order dt. 6/4/2009 - Annex.G, allowed the appeal, remitted the proceeding for consideration afresh, whereafterwards, on remand, the Asst. Commissioner, by order dt. 15/1/2010 - Annex.H, allowed the claim, declared the transaction as null and void and directed resumption of the land in favour of the grantee. That order, when carried in appeal by the petitioner and the 4th respondent, jointly, the Deputy Commissioner, Mangalore, by order dt. 2/3/2010 - Annex.K, confirmed the order of the Asst.4 W.P.16454/10
Commissioner and dismissed the appeal. Hence this petition.
The only contention of the petitioner, as aired by her learned counsel, is that the decree in O.S.141/98 declaring the petitioner's vendor in title as the owner having perfected his title to the granted land by adverse possession, does not fall within the mischief of Sec.4(1) or (2) of the Act.
Although learned counsel submits that the decree of the nature obtained by the 4th respondent is not covered by the provisions of Sub-Sec.(1) or (2) of Sec.4 of the Act, having regard to the aims and objects of the Act and interpretation that is required to be made in terms of the principles of interpretation of statutes, it is impermissible to accept the submission of the learned counsel.
However, since learned counsel seeks a week's time to examine the position in law, re-list on 1/8/2014."
2. Today, learned Counsel for petitioner reiterates the submission that petitioner's vendor-in-title, having 5 W.P.16454/10 obtained a decree from a competent civil Court declaring him to have perfected his title to the granted land by way of adverse possession, such a decree does not fall within purview of sub section (1), (2) of section 4 of The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, ('the Act' for short).
3. Regard being had to the fact that there being no dispute over the three ingredients essential for decision making, as observed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pedda Reddy vs. State of Karnataka1, i.e., the grant having been made to a member of a scheduled tribe laced with a condition of non-alienation and that transfer of the property in violation of the said condition or without permission of the State, there is no more doubt in my mind that by lawyer's ingenuity without disclosing the effect of Section 4 of the Act the petitioner's vendor-in-title obtained a decree of the civil Court to have perfected title to the granted land by way 1 (1993)1 KLJ 328 6 W.P.16454/10 of adverse possession after the Act came into force which is covered by the provisions of Section 4 of the Act.
4. In the result, this petition devoid of merit, is rejected with cost quantified at `3,000/- payable to the third respondent.
Sd/-
JUDGE kcm