Karnataka High Court
Smt Dhanalakshmi vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 May, 2023
-1-
WP No. 9838 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MAY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 9838 OF 2022 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
SMT. DHANALAKSHMI
W/O Y.NAGRAJ
AGED 48 YEARS,
R/AT THYAVAKANAHALLI SARJAPURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE-562 125.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAKASH TIMMANNA HEBBAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
Digitally MS BUILDING, 5TH FLOOR,
signed by
CHAITHRA A DR AMBEDKAR ROAD,
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
BANGALORE-560 001
KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DISTRICT, K.G.ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 009.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION,
KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 009.
-2-
WP No. 9838 of 2022
4. SHRI.CHETHANA S.G.
S/O GANESH
AGED 28 YEARS,
R/AT NO.538, YELLAMMA TEMPLE ROAD,
NEAR SMALL MOSQUE, SARJAPURA,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 125.
5. SMT.GULLAMMA
D/O LATE KULLAPPA
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT SHAMUBLINGESWARA TEMPLE,
SARJAPUR TOWN, ANEKAL TALUK-562 125.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VENKAT SATHYANARAYAN, HCGP FOR R1-R3;
SRI.M.NARAYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI.B.BOPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
PROCEEDINGS INITIATED PURSUANT TO ANNEXURE-A
PENDING BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT/ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER IN CASE SC/ST(PTCL) NO.48/2021 DIRECTING
THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 TO DELETE THE CASE NO.
SC.ST (PTCL) NO. 48/2020-21 ENTERED IN COLUMN NO.11 IN
THE RTC AND TO ENTER THE PETITIONERS NAME IN THE RTC
IN RESPECT OF THE LAND IN QUESTION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
WP No. 9838 of 2022
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"(a) To issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the impugned proceedings initiated on 22.02.2021, pursuant to Annexure-A pending before 3rd respondent/Assistant Commissioner in Case SC/ST (PTCL) No.48/2020-21.
(b) To issue a Writ of Mandamus by directing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to delete the case No.SC.ST (PTCL) No.48/2020-21 entered in column No.11 in the RTC, pursuant to Annexure-L and to enter the petitioner's name in the RTC in respect of the land in question.
(c) To grant such other or further relief/s that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, including the cost of this proceedings, in the interest of justice."
2. The subject matter of the petition is an agricultural land measuring 4 acres in Old Sy.No.33 (New Sy.No.223). The petition land was granted to one Chikkayellamma on 25.06.1976. A sale certificate was issued on 25.06.1976. The original grantee -4- WP No. 9838 of 2022 Chikkayellamma sold 4 acres in favour of one Sri. Yellappa under two registered sale deeds dated 28.08.1991 and 22.10.1991. After the demise of purchaser Yellappa, the property was mutated in favour of his wife Smt. Muniyamma, who with the consent of family members, executed gift deed in favour of the present petitioner herein under registered gift deed dated 23.09.2009.
3. The children of the original grantee namely Chikkayellamma initiated proceedings seeking resumption of petition land by filing an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short "PTCL Act") in 2001. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the application vide order dated 28.06.2003 as per Annexure-D. The respondent preferred an appeal before the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-F. The Deputy Commissioner remitted the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh enquiry. After remand, the respondent No.3/Assistant -5- WP No. 9838 of 2022 Commissioner vide order dated 01.12.2008 after rehearing the matter on merits again rejected the application. This order is not questioned by the private respondents and the said order has attained finality.
4. In the second round of litigation, one Gullamma claiming to be the daughter of Chikkayellamma again initiated proceedings by filing an application under Section 5 of PTCL Act. The said application was again rejected by the respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner as per Annexure-H. The said order was taken in appeal by the respondent No.5 before the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner. The respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner allowed the application and ordered for restoration of land on the ground that alienation by original grantee is in contravention of the provisions of PTCL Act.
5. The petitioner herein feeling aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner filed writ petition in W.P.No.13664/2014 before this Court vide Annexure-K. -6- WP No. 9838 of 2022 This Court having examined the rival contentions, following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vivek M.Hinduja and Others vs. M.Ashwatha and Others1 held that the applicant could not have moved an application as the proceedings were not initiated within a reasonable time. Therefore, this Court set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner who had rejected the application seeking restoration of the land.
6. The second round initiated at the instance of the daughter who was not party in the first round litigation has not opted to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge which has attained finality.
7. This being the factual aspect, the respondent No.4 who is the son of one Ganesh who was party to the proceedings in first round of litigation has initiated fresh 1 (2018) 1 KLR 176 (SC) -7- WP No. 9838 of 2022 proceedings seeking restoration of the land. The respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner has entertained the application and has commenced with the enquiry.
8. The short question that requires consideration at the hands of this Court is, as to whether respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner can proceed with the enquiry under Section 5 of PTCL Act when the controversy is given a quietus on two occasions. On examining the records, this Court would find that in the first round of litigation, the respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 28.06.2003 has rejected the application filed by father of respondent No.4. The said order has attained finality. In the second round of litigation, this Court has set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner ordering for restoration by allowing the writ petition filed in W.P.No.13664/2014 as per Annexure-K.
9. If these significant details are taken into consideration, then the initiation of proceedings by the respondent No.4 is nothing short of abuse of process. The -8- WP No. 9838 of 2022 legal heirs of the original grantee cannot go on filing similar applications when the lis is given a quietus by this Court. Even otherwise, this Court is unable to understand as to how respondent No.4 who is the grandson of the original grantee of Chikkayellamma has locus to initiate proceedings under Section 5 when his father being a Class-I heir having initiated proceedings in first round of litigation suffered an order and has accepted the order. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to quash the proceedings pending before the respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner in case No.SC/ST (PTCL) No.48/2020-21. Said proceedings cannot be entertained by the respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner. If permitted, the same would amount to abuse of process and would cause gross injustice to the petitioner herein who has succeeded on two occasions in earlier two round of litigations.
10. For the reasons stated supra, I pass the following:
-9-WP No. 9838 of 2022
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed;
(ii) The proceedings pending before the respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner in Case SC/ST (PTCL) No.48/2020-21 is hereby quashed;
(iii) The pending interlocutory application, if any, does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31