Karnataka High Court
Sri K Sriramaiah vs The Deputy Commissioner on 8 September, 2022
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: Alok Aradhe
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT APPEAL NO.29/2022(SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
SRI K. SRIRAMAIAH
S/O KADIRPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
RESIDING AT DODAMALADODDI
VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK
KOLAR DIST - 563 135. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI G.A. SRIKANTE GOWDA, ADV)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOLAR DIST, KOLAR - 563 101.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KOLAR DIST, KOLAR - 563 101.
K.V. VEERAPPA
DEAD BY LRS
3. SMT. CHOWDAMMA
W/O LATE K.V. VEERAPPA
AGEDM ABOUT 70 YEARS
4. SRI KRISHNA REDDY
S/O LATE K.V. VEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
2
5. SRI K.V. NARAYANA REDDY
S/O LATET K.V. VEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO.3 AND 4 ARE
RESIDING AT KIRUWARA VILLAGE
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK - 563 135.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S. MAHENDRA, A.G.A. FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI L. VENKATARAMA REDDY, ADV., FOR R-3 TO R-5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN WP NO.
52088/2019 DATED 18.11.2021 TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO CONTINUE THE REVENUE ENTRIES IN THE
NAME OF APPELLANTS AS PER ORDER ANNEXURE-B AND C.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 18.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.52088/2019.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are, land bearing Sy.No.99, subsequently re-numbered as Sy.No.99/2 situated at Kiruwara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Srinivasapura Taluk, measuring 2 acres was granted to 3 one Sri A.K.Muniga, who is the grandfather of the appellant herein under a grant order dated 12.05.1950. The original grantee had sold the said land in favour of respondent No.3 - K.V.Veerappa under a registered sale deed dated 25.04.1978. Subsequently, the legal representatives of the original grantee had filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 5 of the Karnataka Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'PTCL' Act) in the year 2007 for resumption of the said land. The said application was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 11.08.2016. He had directed to restore the possession of the land in question in favour of the original grantee. The said order was confirmed in appeal filed by the legal representatives of deceased K.V.Veerappa by the Deputy Commissioner. It is under these circumstances, the legal representatives of K.V.Veerappa filed writ petition in W.P.No.52088/2019 before this Court, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide the order impugned and being aggrieved by the same, respondent No.3 therein, 4 who is the legal heir of original grantee has preferred this appeal.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that no sale has taken place in respect of the land in question as alleged. The contesting respondents herein have failed to produce the alleged sale deed dated 25.04.1978 either before the authorities or before this Court. He submits that an application was filed challenging the revenue entries which were transferred in the name of K.V.Veerappa and the Assistant Commissioner has entertained the said application and accordingly has passed an order which has been upheld by the Deputy Commissioner. He submits that the learned Single Judge was therefore not justified in allowing the writ petition on the ground that the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act has been filed after inordinate delay.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondents have argued in support of the order impugned.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that no sale of the land in question has taken place at 5 any point of time and he has disputed the existence of the sale deed dated 25.04.1978. An application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act can be filed before the competent authority only in case where transfer of granted land is made in violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act. The word 'transfer' has been defined in the PTCL Act, and it reads as under:
"2(e) "Transfer" means a sale, gift, exchange, mortgage (with or without possession), lease or any other transaction not being a partition among members of a family or a testamentary disposition and includes the creation of charge or an arrangement to sell, exchange, mortgage or lease or enter into any other transaction."
7. According to the appellant, no sale deed has been executed in favour of K.V.Veerappa as alleged and if that be so there is no transfer of land in question within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the PTCL Act. In the said event, the application filed by the appellant before the Assistant Commissioner for restoration of the land was not at all maintainable.
6
8. From the perusal of the above order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, it is seen that he has exercised the power under Section 5 of the PTCL Act and has held that the sale made in favour of K.V.Veerappa is hit by Section 4 of the PTCL Act and accordingly he has passed an order for restoration of land. The said order has been upheld by the Deputy Commissioner. It has been specifically contended before us on behalf of appellant that the land in question was not sold to anybody at any point of time and they have disputed the existence of the alleged sale deed dated 25.04.1978 said to have been executed by the original grantee in favour of K.V.Veerappa. If the land in question was not the subject matter of the sale deed or in other transaction, then in our considered view, there is no transfer of the land within the meaning of word 'transfer' as defined under Section 2(e) of the PTCL Act and if that is so, the provisions of the PTCL Act would not be applicable to the case on hand.
9. The material on record would go to show that the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy 7 Commissioner have passed the orders impugned in the writ petition in exercise of their power under the provisions of the PTCL Act. Therefore, the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner would be one without jurisdiction. Under these circumstances, the said orders cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Therefore, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, wherein he has quashed the said orders. Accordingly, we find no merit in this appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed.
SD/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SD/-
JUDGE NMS