Karnataka High Court
Smt Gangamma vs State Of Karnataka on 23 January, 2018
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N. Satyanarayana
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA
WRIT PETITION No.50447/2015 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN
SMT. GANGAMMA
D/O LATE MUNIYAMMA
W/O HANUMANTHARAJU
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/O GUBBI TOWN
TUMKUR
...PETITIONER
(By Sri A RAMANJANAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIKAS SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 01
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TUMKUR DISTRICT
TUMKUR - 572 101
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
TUMKUR SUB-DIVISION
TUMKUR - 572 101
4. SMT. RAJAMMA
W/O LATE G.V. CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
2
5. G.S. SUDHA
D/O LATE G.V. CHANDRAPPA
W/O M.S. PRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
6. G.P. PUSHPALATHA
D/O LATE G.V. CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
7. G.S. ARUNAKUMAR
S/O LATE G.V. CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
8. G.C. RUDRAMURTHY
S/O LATE G.V. CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESPONDENTS 4 TO 8 ALL ARE
RESIDENTS OF GUBBI TOWN
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 216
...RESPONDENTS
(By Smt. SAVITHRAMMA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 01.08.2014 IN PTCL
NO.5/2011-12 PASSED BY R-2 AND ORDER DATED 18.02.2009
IN PTCL NO.26/2006-07 PASSED BY R-3 HEREIN AT
ANNEXURES-A & B AND ISSUE DIRECTION TO R-3 TO REGRANT
AND RESUME THE LAND IN QUESTION TO THE PETITIONER
HEREIN AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The petitioner herein is impugning the order dated 18.02.2009 passed in PTCL No.26/2006-07 by respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner, which is confirmed by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner in PTCL No.5/2011-12 by order dated 01.08.2014.
2. Brief facts leading to this petition are as under;
The petitioner is claiming that the land bearing Sy.No.353, measuring to an extent of 5 acres 25 guntas originally belonged to one Sidda @ Siddaiah, who was the Barawardar and was rendering Kolkarike service. The aforesaid land was given to him as service inam. According to the petitioner, the Kolkarike Bitti Chakiri was done by Sidda @ Siddaiah in Gubbi Town. The land given to him was said to be in enjoyment of his legal heirs namely, Police Muniyappa, Muninarasaiah, Muniswamaiah and a daughter by name Muniyamma. The petitioner- Gangamma herein is the daughter Muniyamma and claims to be the grand-daughter of Sidda @ Siddaiah, who was 4 said to be the Barawardar of the inam land. According to the petitioner, the inam land which was assigned for the Kolkarike service rendered by her grandfather was re- granted in favour of Chinnaiah S/o. Siddalingaiah in INA No.808/1967-68 by order dated 20.03.1978 under the provisions of Mysore Village Office Abolition Act, 1961 and thereafter, the said Chinnaiah alienated 20 guntas in favour of C.V. Ramachandrappa S/o. Veerappa, the father of respondent Nos.4 to 8, who are presently in possession and enjoyment of the said land. The petitioner herein is seeking restoration of the aforesaid 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.353, which is said to have been allotted in favour of Chinnaiah, who in turn sold 20 guntas to C.V. Ramachandrappa, the father of respondent Nos.4 to 8.
3. The records would indicate that proceedings was commenced in PTCL No.26/2006-07 on the file of the Assistant Commissioner, Tumakuru Sub-Division. In the said proceedings, it has been noticed that the order of re- grant in favour of Chinnaiah is with reference to the lands 5 in Sy.No.353 to an extent of 5 acres 25 guntas and Sy.No.108/1 measuring 18 guntas in INA No.808/1967-68 as stated supra. It has also been observed with reference to an extent of 20 guntas, which was the subject matter of PTCL No.17/1993-94 was already dismissed on 17.03.1994, which was the subject matter of appeal in PTCL No.8/1994-95 on the file of respondent No.2, which also came to be dismissed on 11.11.1998 on the ground that the same was not a government land and since it was a Kolkarike inam, the same is not attracted by the provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978.
4. It is seen that the aforesaid two proceedings were by one Chinnaiah S/o. Siddalingaiah, in whose favour the re- grant was made, based on which the application filed by Gangamma, who is said to be daughter of Muniyamma, was also dismissed. However, in the writ petition, the petitioner is giving totally a different set of facts, which does not relate her in any manner to Chinnaiah, who has 6 secured re-grant in the proceedings in INA No.808/1967- 68 dated 20.03.1978. In that view of the matter, it is clearly seen that the petitioner has failed to establish any kind of relationship between her and the grantee. However, the petition averments would indicate that she is the grand-daughter of Sidda @ Siddaiah. According to the petition averments, he was the Barawardar of Kolkarike Service inam and the land bearing Sy.No.353 was his inam land. The averments in the writ petition is inconsistent with the findings given by respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the proceedings initiated by the petitioner Gangamma wherein, the application filed by her was dismissed on the ground that the challenge to the sale cannot be entertained in view of the fact that the said land is not a PTCL land. When all these things are looked into, the petitioner herself is not certain about her title to the property and also with reference to the lineage of Sidda @ Siddaiah as against the land which is allotted to Chinnaiah in INA proceedings.
7
5. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that no justifying grounds are made out to interfere with the order passed in PTCL No.26/2007-07, which was dismissed by respondent No.3 on 18.02.2007 and confirmed by respondent No.2 in PTCL No.5/1991-92 by order dated 01.08.2014.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE mv