Karnataka High Court
Sri K T Huchegowda vs The Deputy Commissioner on 23 March, 2022
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.42847 OF 2011 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI.K.T.HUCHEGOWDA
S/O THIMMEGOWDA
AGED 62 YEARS
R/O KARAKUCHI VILLAGE, 'A' COLONY
LAKKAVALLI HOBLI
TARIKERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.M.R.RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.H.N.BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT
CHIKKAMAGALUR
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
TARIKERE SUB-DIVISION
TARIKERE, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT
3. TAHASILDAR
TARIKERE TALUK, TARIKERE
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT
4. SRI.M.BASAVARAJU
S/O LAKSHMANAPPA
AGED 46 YEARS
R/O KARAKUCHI VILLAGE
'A' COLONY, LAKKAVALLI HOBLI
TARIKERE TALUK
2
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.D.C.PARAMESHWARAIAH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3,
SRI.F.S.DABALI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE R2 DT
08.12.2006 IN R.A.NO.17/05-06 AS PER ANNEXURE-J
AND ALSO THE ORDER OF THE R1 DATED 14.12.2009
IN R.A.NO.42/06-07 AS PER ANNEXURE-K AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
This writ petition filed in the year 2011 is directed against an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Tarikere Sub Division in R.A.No.17/2005-06 dated 08.12.2006 at Annexure-J and thereafter confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamagaluru District in R.A.No.42/2006-07 dated 14.12.2009 at Annexure-K.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had purchased 2 acres and 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.77 of Karakuchi Village, Tarikere Taluk, Chikkamagalur District, from the father of respondent 3 No.4 under a sale deed dated 28.07.1979. Thereafter, respondent No.4 filed a petition invoking the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition Of Transfer Of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'PTCL Act' for short) before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner held that sale deed dated 28.07.1979 is hit by the provisions of the PTCL Act and therefore, directed resumption of the lands from the petitioner and directed restoration of the same in favour of respondent No.4. The matter went upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court at the instance of the petitioner and the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was confirmed. Thereafter, the process of restoration commenced and the Assistant Commissioner directed the Tahsildar to identify the land as per the schedule mentioned in the sale deed dated 28.07.1979 and hand over the possession of 2 acres and 20 guntas in favour of respondent No.4.
3. In the meanwhile, the petitioner seems to have made an application seeking regularization of 1 4 acre and 26 guntas of government land in the very same Sy.No.77. It is contended that the Committee for regularization passed a resolution dated 25.08.1994 and thereafter, an order of grant was made by the Tahsildar in NCR.No.129/1994-95. It is contended by the petitioner that mutation was effected in the name of the petitioner in M.R.No.17/1994-95 in respect of 1 acre and 26 guntas of land. However, respondent No.4 herein filed R.A.No.52/1997-98 before the Assistant Commissioner challenging the order of regularization passed in favour of the petitioner herein. The Assistant Commissioner proceeded to hold that there was a dispute already existing in respect of the land sought to be regularized in favour of the petitioner and the Committee for regularization and the Tahsildar without verifying the correctness of the application made by the petitioner herein had granted the said land in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, the order of the Committee directing the regularization of the land measuring 1 acre and 26 guntas of land in Sy.No.77 in favour of the petitioner was quashed and the matter 5 was remitted back to the Committee for regularization for reconsideration. The petitioner thereafter approached the Deputy Commissioner calling in question the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner also noticed that the schedule found in the sale deed was in conformity with the schedule shown by the petitioner while seeking regularization of 1 acre and 26 guntas of land and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner held that without verifying all these aspects, the committee has passed the orders and the Tahsildar had granted 1 acre and 26 guntas of land. Having found that there is no discrepancy in the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the appeal of the petitioner was rejected. Aggrieved the petitioner is before this Court.
4. During the course of these proceedings, this Court having found that the actual dispute is regarding the claim of respondent No.4 having succeeded under the provision of the PTCL Act, and the land sold under sale deed dated 28.07.1979 was required to be restored 6 in favour of the respondent No.4 and at the same time the petitioner also had made an application seeking regularization of 1 acre and 26 guntas of government land in the very same Sy.No.77, the dispute was required to be resolved taking into consideration the schedule found in the sale deed. No doubt, the petitioner seeks to contend that there is about 4 acres and 15 guntas of land in Sy.No.77 and what was purchased from father of respondent No.4 was only 2 acres and 20 guntas of land and the petitioner claimed to be in possession of the remaining extent of 1 acre and 26 guntas of land unauthorizedly and therefore, he has made an application seeking regularization of the same. On the other hand, it is the contention of respondent No.4 that he is legally entitled to recover possession of 2 acres and 20 guntas of land in terms of the schedule in the sale deed dated 28.07.1979. Therefore, this Court had directed the concerned Tahsildar to survey the lands in question in the presence of the parties and submit a report to this Court. The Tahsildar has conducted a survey and has furnished the 7 sketch and spot mahazar along with a memo dated 02.03.2022.
5. Sri.M.R.Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has sought to place reliance on certain documents filed along with a memo dated 08.03.2022. According to the learned Senior Counsel, these are documents to show the proceedings conducted by the Tahsildar at the instance of the Assistant Commissioner who had directed restoration of land measuring 2 acres and 20 guntas under the provisions of the PTCL Act. It is contended that these proceedings were held in the year 1992-93 and it is clear from these documents that respondent No.4 accepted the sketch and mahazar drawn in the presence of the parties, wayback in the year 1992-93 and the revenue entries are accordingly maintained. Having regard to these documents and the fact that respondent No.4 had not raised any dispute in the matter of taking possession of the 2 acres and 20 guntas as per the sketch produced along with these documents, it does 8 not lie in the mouth of respondent No.4, at this juncture, to dispute the survey sketch and mahazar drawn wayback in the year 1992-93.
6. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that if respondent No.4 is aggrieved of the survey and mahazar drawn in the year 1992-93, he is required to approach the competent Civil Court to redress his grievance. This submission cannot be accepted because respondent No.4 is required to be put in possession of 2 acres and 20 guntas of land in terms of the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in terms of the provision of the PTCL Act. In fact, no suit shall lie against any person, as provided in Section 9 of the PTCL Act, for anything which is done in pursuance of the Act. Further, the provisions of the PTCL Act, in terms of Section 11, has over-riding effect over other laws. When the schedule of the sale deed is clear, there is no scope for the revenue authorities to go beyond what is provided in the schedule of the sale deed. 9
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that even from the documents submitted by the petitioner along with the memo dated 08.03.2022, it is clear that respondent No.4 never agreed to the sketch drawn in the presence of the parties. Learned counsel submits that the when it is clear from the schedule provided in the sale deed dated 28.07.1979 that there is a water channel running towards the east and south of the property and what is sought to be handed over to respondent No.4 is the western side of the property which does not have a water channel running on the eastern side, the contentions of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that respondent No.4 will be satisfied, if 2 acres and 20 guntas of land abutting the water channel running on the eastern and southern side, is handed over to the petitioner, in terms of the schedule contained in the sale deed dated 28.07.1979.
8. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and 10 on perusing the petition papers and the survey sketch and mahazar submitted by the Tahsildar consequent to the directions issued by this Court, this Court finds that the claim of the petitioner in respect of 1 acre and 26 guntas of government land in Sy.No.77 could have been considered by the Committee for regularization only after satisfying itself regarding the identity of the land. It is an undisputed fact that the authorities were required to put respondent No.4 in possession of 2 acres and 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.77 in terms of the schedule provided in the sale date dated 28.07.1979. When it is clear from the sale deed that 2 acres and 20 guntas of land is bounded on the east and south by water channel, 2 acres and 20 guntas was required to be demarcated accordingly. The claim of the petitioner in respect of 1 acre and 26 guntas was to be beyond the 2 acres and 20 guntas which was required to be identified and handed over to respondent No.4.
9. In the light of these factual findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that no fault could be 11 found in the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. What was required to be handed over to the respondent No.4 is 2 acres and 20 guntas of land which is bounded on the eastern side by water channel and the southern side by water channel. If there is any remaining extent of land on the western side of the property measuring of 1 acres 26 guntas of land, the petitioner may be entitled for.
10. Consequently, the writ petition fails and accordingly dismissed.
11. The 3rd Respondent-Tashildar is hereby directed to put the 4th Respondent in possession of 2 Acres 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.77, accordingly. The Revenue entries shall accordingly follow.
Sd/-
JUDGE rv