Karnataka High Court
Sri. Kandakurappa M/O Hanumavva ... vs The Deputy Commissioner on 6 March, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4903
WP No. 101427 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA
WRIT PETITION NO. 101427 OF 2024 (SCST-)
BETWEEN:
SRI. KANDAKURAPPA M/O HANUMAVVA HADEMANI
AGE 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NO. 161, KANDAAKUR ROAD, BUSINESS CITY,
WARD NO.1, KUSSSSHTAGI, TQ. KUSHTAGI,
DIST. KOPPAL. PIN 583119
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANAND R KOLLI.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOPPAL, PIN 582114
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOPPAL
DIST. KOPPAL, PIN 582114
3. THE TAHSILDAR KUKANUR
DIST. KOPPAL, PIN 583236
Digitally
signed by
MANJANNA E 4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR KUKANUR
Location:
High Court of DIST. KOPPAL, PIN 583236
Karnataka
5. SRI RAMESH S/O BASAPPA CHALUVADI
AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. TALKAL, TQ. KUKANUR,
DIST. KOPPAL, PIN 583236
6. SRI. SHARANAPPA S/O KARIYAPPA CHALUVADI
AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. TALKAL, TQ. KUKANUR,
DIST. KOPPAL, PIN 583236
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4903
WP No. 101427 of 2024
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER
BEARING NO. PRAKARANA SANKE KAM/APPEALU/69/2022-23 DATED
13.04.2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AUTHORITY
MARKED AS ANNEXURE-E. B) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING
NO.SANKE.KAM/PTCL/08/2021-22/5551 DINANK.21.10.2022 PASSED
BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AUTHORITY MARKED AS ANNEXURE-D IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner filed the petition seeking grant of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 13.04.2023 passed by respondent No.1 as per Annexure-E and order dated 21.10.2022 passed by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-D.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Anand R.Kolli for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner had purchased the land measuring 2.28 acres in Sy.No.745/1 of Talakal village of Kuknoor Hobli under the registered sale deed dated 04.1.2020. A -3- NC: 2024:KHC-D:4903 WP No. 101427 of 2024 proceeding was initiated by respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'PTCL Act' for short), passed order as per Annexure- D and directed respondent No.3-Tahasildar to take possession of the property, since there is violation of the provisions of PTCL Act. The petitioner challenged the said order before respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner by filing an appeal in appeal No.69/2022-23. The same was came to be dismissed without considering the contentions taken by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is before this court.
4. Learned counsel submitted that the land in question was acquired as an excess land and the same was allotted in favour of the predecessor in interest of the vendor under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision in Mohammed Jaffar and Another vs State -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:4903 WP No. 101427 of 2024 of Karnataka and Others1, in support of his contention that under such circumstances, provisions of PTCL Act cannot be made applicable to take possession of the land. This position of law was not considered by the respondents and the impugned orders were came to be passed. Therefore, he prays for allowing the petition in the interest of justice.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP opposing the petition submitted that the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have passed appropriate orders for taking possession of the property for violation of the provisions of PTCL Act. Learned HCGP fairly conceded that as per the order passed by this court, the provisions of the PTCL Act will not be applicable when the grant was under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Hence, he prays for passing appropriate orders.
6. Perused the materials on record.
1 ILR 2002 KAR 4693 -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:4903 WP No. 101427 of 2024
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision in Mohammed Jaffar (supra), wherein it is held as under:
"11. The main question while considering the legal position is whether after coming into force of the KLR Act as amended by Karnataka Act No. 1 of 1974, the land will automatically vest in the Government or only surplus land or the land for which no application has been made or if an application is made and the same is rejected, the sale of land granted therein will attract the provisions of the PTCL Act.
14. Under the circumstances, it is clear that occupancy right cannot at all fall within the ambit of 'granted land' as defined under the PTCL Act. Considering the argument of the learned Government Advocate with regard to automatic vesting of land in the Government, it is seen that the vesting of land in the Government is subject to vested right of a tenant to get occupancy right and for determination of right and confer- ment of occupancy Land Tribunal, a Statutory Authority established under the Land Reforms Act, is the Competent Authority to determine the same on a tenant who was personally cultivating the land on 1-3-1974. In view of this, the occupancy right, which has been granted by the Land Tribunal, cannot be construed as "granted land" as defined under the PTCL Act. ... ... ... ... ... On overall consideration and as discussed above, we are of the view that the land in respect of which the occupancy right has conferred under Section 48A of the KLR Act would not fall within the ambit of 'granted land' as defined under Section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act and answer the referred question in negative."-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4903 WP No. 101427 of 2024
8. There is no dispute with regard to this position of law. Respondent No.2 proceeded to pass the impugned order as per Annexure-D for confiscation of the land in question and taking its possession, in view of violation of the provisions of PTCL Act. The appeal was came to be dismissed by respondent No.1 as per Annexure-E on the same grounds. It is noticed that the respondents have not taken into consideration the settled position of law on the subject. Hence, I am of opinion that the impugned orders are required to be quashed. Accordingly I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The order dated 13.04.2023 passed by
respondent No.1 as per Annexure-E and
order dated 21.10.2022 passed by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-D SD/-
JUDGE MBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12