Karnataka High Court
Smt. Rajamma vs The Deputy Commissioner on 11 October, 2018
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
WRIT PETITION NO.5489/2011(SC/ST-LG)
BETWEEN
1. SMT. RAJAMMA
W/O LATE PONNUSWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
2. SRI MAHESHA,
S/O LATE PONNUSWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
JYOTHIPURA VILLAGE,
KUNDANA HOBLI,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SUNIL S RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
V V TOWERS,
DR AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE -560 001
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION,
V V TOWERS,
2
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE TAHASILDAR
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
4. SRI CHANDRE GOWDA
S/O PILLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/A HUGANAVADI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.SAVITHRAMMA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3,
SRI K.N.PUTTEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ONE PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 1.2.1999 IN CASE NO.
LND.SC/ST.2/88-89 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-L AND ALSO THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.03.2010 ONE PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 IN CASE NO.LND.SC/ST.1/2006-07
FOUND AT ANNEXURE-M AND ETC.
THIS W.P HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The Petitioners herein are seeking quashing of order of 2nd Respondent dated: 1.2.1999 in case No.LND.SC/ST.2/88-89 and also the order of 1st Respondent dated:30.3.2010 in case 3 No.LND.SC/ST.1/2006-07 in confirming the order of 2nd Respondent.
2. Brief facts leading to this writ petition are as under;
The Petitioners 1 and 2 are said to be persons belonging to oppressed class. According to them, land bearing Sy.No.91, measuring 4 acres situated at Alur Duddanahalli Village, Devanahalli Taluk, was granted in favour of one Subbanna, who is said to be the father-in-law of 1st Petitioner and paternal grand father of 2nd Petitioner under grant certificate vide Annexure-B. The very same document which is produced by the 4th Respondent as Annexure-R4 would indicate that the same is dated:31st August 1961.
3. The Petitioners would contend that, the said grant was under land grant rules which imposes a condition that, the lands which are granted to persons of depressed class are subject to restriction of non-alienability for a period of 15 years from the date of grant. It is stated that, contrary to the said restrictions the said land was sold by Subbanna in favour of one 4 Pillappa S/o Channe Gowda under registered sale deed dated 24.8.1968 and put him in possession of said land. Subsequently, the said land was sold by Pillappa in favour of Munivenkatappa S/o Anjanappa under sale deed dated:23.5.1972 and thereafter, the said land purchased by Munivenkatappa is sold in favour of one Chandre Gowda S/o Pillappa, (who is 4th Respondent herein) on 13.3.1987. Thereafter, his name was entered in the revenue record of aforesaid land.
4. Subsequently, on PTCL Act coming into force, the husband of First Petitioner and father of Second Petitioner viz., Ponnuswamy said to be the son of Subbanna - original grantee filed an application before 2nd Respondent - Asst Commissioner, Doddaballapur Sub-Division seeking restoration of said land under the provisions of PTCL Act, contending that, the sale of said land by his father Late Subbanna is in contravention of land grant rules and as well as the provisions of PTCL Act and sought for restoration of said land. The said application which was registered as Case No.LND.SC.ST 2/88-89 came to be 5 allowed by order of Asst. Commissioner Dated:18.81988. The said order of the Asst. Commissioner of Doddaballapur was challenged by the 4th Respondent before the 1st Respondent - Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District in Case No.LND.SC.ST. 18/88-89, wherein his grievance was that, in the proceedings before Asst. Commissioner no enquiry was held to ascertain whether the original grantee was a person belonging to S.C/S.T,. That, in the absence of a clear finding on the same, the Asst. Commissioner could not have held that there is violation of the provisions of PTCL Act. The said proceedings was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner and he remanded the same for reconsideration of 2nd Respondent - Asst. Commissioner vide order Dated:28.1.1989.
5. In the remanded proceedings, which was numbered as case No.LND.SC.ST 2/1988-89 the 2nd Respondent - Asst. Commissioner after hearing the counsel for both the parties held that the grant of 4 acres of land in Sy.No.91 of Alur Duddanahalli village in favour of Subbanna was subjected to non-alienability condition of 15 years and that the said person 6 belongs to schedule tribe on the basis of certificate produced by him and verification of the grant certificate. Further held that the sale deeds executed by original grantee - Subbanna would indicate that the sale in favour of Pillappa and subsequent sale of said land by Pillappa to Munivenkatappa and from him to Chandre Gowda - 4th Respondent herein is contrary to the condition imposed in the grant certificate and as well as the provisions of PTCL Act and accordingly, the said sale transactions are required to be set aside and the land is required to be restored to the applicant - Ponnuswamy.
6. The said order of Asst. Commissioner dated 19.8.1991 was again subjected to challenge by the 4th Respondent - Chandre Gowda before the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District, in a proceedings bearing case No.LND.SC.ST 26/1991-92, which was again set aside by the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 17.2.1993 and thereafter, remanded the matter to the Asst. Commissioner for denovo enquiry regarding the caste of grantee after giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties. It is after the said 7 remand the Asst. Commissioner conducted an enquiry and passed an order on 1.2.1999 in rejecting the application filed by Ponnuswamy seeking restoration and possession of land by dismissing the application filed by him in case No.LND.SC.ST 2/1988-89.
7. It is seen that the said order of the Asst.
Commissioner dated 1.2.1999 was challenged belatedly before the Deputy Commissioner by the wife and son of Ponnuswamy (by then it is stated Ponnuswamy had already died). The said appeal filed by the petitioners herein in case No.LND.SC.ST (A)1/2007-08 was heard and dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 30.3.2010. It is the said order of the 1st Respondent - Deputy Commissioner which is at Annexure-M and that of the 2nd Respondent - Asst. Commissioner in dismissing the application of Ponnuswamy which is at Annexure-L are subjected to challenge in this writ petition on the ground that the order of Asst. Commissioner dated 19.8.1991 had become conclusive, therefore, subsequent challenge to the same before the Deputy Commissioner, which 8 has resulted in setting aside the said order and remanding it back to the Asst. Commissioner and further order passed by the Asst. Commissioner vide Annexure-L and confirmation of the same by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-M, are without basis. Inasmuch as, there was manipulation in the proceedings before the Asst. Commissioner resulting in dismissal of the application filed by Ponnuswamy, which is not rightly appreciated by the Deputy Commissioner.
8. It is also contended that when once an order was passed by the Asst. Commissioner holding that the grantee Subbanna belongs to schedule tribe/schedule caste the subsequent finding that his son Ponnuswamy has not established that he belongs to schedule caste/schedule tribe, is without basis and the subsequent orders are non est and void. Inasmuch as, the earlier finding in holding that the original grantee - Subbanna and Ponnuswamy are belonging to schedule caste/schedule tribe had attained finality and there was no reason to reconsider the same. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Asst. Commissioner and confirmed by the Deputy 9 Commissioner in contradiction to the earlier finding is erroneous and the same is required to be quashed.
9. In this proceedings, the contesting 4th Respondent has filed detailed statement of objections producing all the original documents, namely Darkasth register extract and the proceedings conducted prior to grant of land in favour of Subbanna and others. The said document is produced as Annexure-R1 and the Grant Certificate which is issued to Subbanna is at Annexure-R2. He has also produced the list of backward classes of citizens under Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India along with the statement of objections, wherein it is contended in the first place that the grantee - Subbanna was not belonging either to schedule caste or schedule tribe and he was a person belonging to backward class; that the alleged grant is not a grant; that the same is under an auction sale conducted by the competent authority and the issuance of grant certificate is by receiving the value of the land as decided in the proceedings which was conducted prior to considering the grant of land in favour of Subbanna and 9 other 10 persons in a proceedings which is referred to at Annexure-R1. Therefore, the application filed by Ponnuswamy claiming himself belonging to oppressed class and sale of land by his father is in contravention of the provisions of PTCL Act, is not maintainable on both the counts i.e., on the ground that they belong to oppressed class, namely schedule caste/schedule tribe and that the grant made in their favour is protected under the provisions of PTCL Act and as well as that the grant in favour of Subbanna attracts the provisions of PTCL Act and also subject to non- alienability clause as it was applicable to granted lands in the year 1961.
10. After giving careful consideration to the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, contesting 4th Respondent as well as learned HCGP appearing on behalf of State, it is clearly seen that the proceedings for grant of excess land in Sy.No.91 of Alur Duddanahalli village, Devanahalli Taluk, was taken up in the year 1961. As could be seen from Annexure-R1, which is in Revenue Form No.121 (Revised) consisting of 9 pages with 2 pages of preamble as PHERIST 11 would indicate that in all 10 persons belonging to different communities are granted lands at 4 acres to each one of them. It is seen that prior to land being granted in their favour, the said land was surveyed, sketch was prepared, value of the same was ascertained and thereafter, the grant is made in their favour by way of auction, where each of the grantee is granted 4 acres of land for clear market value of Rs.10/- per acre as determined by the revenue authorities in the proceedings recorded, which is produced at Annexure-R1.
11. Incidentally, among the 10 grantees referred to at Annexure R1, 7 belong to Vokkaliga community, one belong to Vaddaru community (i.e., the grantee of land in question Subbanna) and the other 2 persons belong to Balajiga community and there is no reference to any of them being members belonging to schedule caste or schedule tribe. The grant certificate which is produced by the petitioners vide Annexure-B and by 4th Respondent vide Annexure-R2 clearly indicate that the grant is not subjected to any condition and it is a clear sale for the value of the property as fixed at Rs.10/- per 12 acre as seen in Annexure-R1. That in the entire document which is referred to as grant certificate in Form No.1 (Rev.Form Sl.No.51) clearly indicate that no non alienable clause is stipulated in the said document thereby indicating that what was conveyed in favour of the grantee is absolute right to deal with the said property.
12. In this background, when the transactions commencing from sale of the land in question by original grantee in favour of Pillappa which has taken place on 24.8.1968 and subsequent two sale transactions ending with 4th Respondent, it is seen that they are not subjected to violation of either the grant condition or any of the provisions of PTCL Act. Inasmuch as, the caste of the grantee as seen in Annexure-R1 would indicate that they do not belong to schedule caste or tribe as on the date when land was granted in their favour as could be seen from Annexure-R4 which is the list of backward classes of citizens under Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India as on that date. Further it is seen that though in the Darkhast proceedings Subbanna is shown as a person belonging to Vaddaru 13 community, the petitioners have secured a caste certificate to demonstrate as if they belong to Bovi community.
13. It is also seen that initially when the proceedings was conducted before the Asst. Commissioner, he has not looked into any of these facts, even though he was specifically directed by the 1st Respondent Deputy Commissioner to conduct an enquiry to ascertain the caste to which Ponnuswamy belongs to, he has not complied the same, instead, by believing the certificate which was produced by Ponnuswamy has proceeded to hold that Ponnuswamy belongs to oppressed class and as such the sale transaction by Subbanna in favour of Pillappa and subsequent transactions are hit by the provisions of PTCL Act. However, subsequently when the same was remanded for the second time it is seen from the order at Annexure-L, the Asst. Commissioner after giving sufficient opportunity to both the parties has held that Ponnuswamy who is said to be son of Subbanna does not belong to schedule caste and that the sale transaction by Subbanna in favour of Pillappa and subsequent 14 sale deeds are not hit by the provisions of PTCL, appears to be just and proper and does not call for interference.
14. At this juncture, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of B.K.Muniraju -vs- State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 2008 SC 1438. In the said judgment it is made clear at paragraph 13 that 'the grant certificate cannot be accepted by nomenclature of the document, instead it should be understood by reading the contents thereof'. If that analogy is applied to the case on hand and Annexure-B as well as Annexure-R2 which are one and the same are looked in to, the said documents would clearly indicate that an extent of 4 acres of land is conveyed to original grantee Subbanna at the rate of Rs.10/- per acre, which is the prevailing price arrived at by the revenue authorities in the proceedings held prior to conveying the said land by way of auction/grant, which document is at Annexure- R1 thereby clearly indicating that the grant which was made is not a free grant but it is grant by way of auction sale collecting the prevailing market value for the said land.
15
15. In that view of the matter, this Court find that no justifiable grounds are made out to interfere with the orders impugned passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur, which is subsequently confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE nd/-