Karnataka High Court
Smt. Sharadamma vs The Deputy Commissioner on 26 July, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO.4575/2012 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHARADAMMA
W/O VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
R/O BHARATAWADI VILLAGE
TALUK:HUNSUR, DISTRICT:MYSORE-571 105.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVAYOGESHA SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. RATNA N. SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HUNSUR SUB-DIVISION, HUNSUR.
3. PUTTANAIK
S/O KENCHANAIKA,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
2
3(A) SMT. DEVIRAMMA
W/O. PUTTANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
3(B) SRI RAGHU NAIKA
S/O. PUTTANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
3(C) SMT. MANJULA
D/O. PUTTANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O. BHARATAWADI VILLAGE
TALUK: HUNSUR, DISTRICT: MYSORE-571 105.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANITHA N., HCGP FOR R-1 AND R-2;.
SRI GURURAJ KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
PROPOSED R-3(A, B & C) ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.3.2011 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN
NO.PTCL 10/2010-11 AND THE ORDER DATED 18.7.2011
PASSED BY THE R-2 IN NO.19.PTCL.19/01-02 VIDE
ANNEXURE-E AND G RESPECTIVELY.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The land bearing Sy.No.6/31 measuring 1 acre 38 guntas situated in Bharatawadi Village, Hunsur Taluk, Mysore District was granted to the father of the respondent No.3 vide grant certificate dated 31.08.1978 in Form No.1 for upset price of Rs.42.10 paise. The father of the respondent No.3 sold the subject land in favour of the petitioner by executing the registered sale deed dated 16.1.1992 and in pursuance of the same, the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records in respect of the said land.
2. Such being the case, the respondent No.3 filed an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka SC-ST (PTCL) Act, 1978 for resumption and restoration of the land before the Assistant Commissioner concerned in 2001-2002. The Assistant Commissioner concerned held that the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner is null and void and resumed the said land with the Government against which the respondent No.3 filed an appeal under Section 5A of the Karnataka SC-ST (PTCL) 4 Act, before the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner concerned. The Deputy Commissioner concerned remanded the matter to the respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner for considering the application submitted by the respondent No.3 afresh. Hence, this petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the subject land was purchased by the father of the respondent No.3 in public auction for upset price of Rs. 42.10 paise and as such the land which was purchased by the father of the respondent No.3 is not a granted land as defined under the provision of the PTCL Act. Hence, he submits that the proceedings initiated under Section 5 of the PTCL Act is one without authority of law. In support, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.K. Muniraju -vs- State of Karnataka and Others, reported in AIR 2008 SC 1438.
4. On the other hand, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State submits that the petitioner not having challenged the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner 5 concerned vesting of the subject land with the Government, the present petition filed challenging the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is not maintainable. She further submits that the land was purchased by the petitioner in violation of Section 4 of the Karnataka SC-ST (PTCL) Act, and as such, the sale deed executed in his favour is null and void and sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
6. Perusal of the certificate of grant at Annexure-A discloses that the subject land was purchased in a public auction by Kenchanaika, father of the respondent No.3 herein for upset price of Rs.42.10 paise. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.K. Muniraju supra has held that the land which was purchased in public auction for a upset price and merely because said document has been titled as 'Certificate of Grant' it cannot be construed that the land was a granted land attracting the provisions of the Act and Rules.
6
7. The subject land which was purchased by the father of the respondent No.3 in public auction for a upset price of Rs.42.10 paise is not a granted land as defined under section 3(1) (b) of the Karnataka SC-ST (PTCL) Act. Hence, initiation of proceedings under Section 5 of the Karnataka SC-ST (PTCL) Act is one without authority of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 15.3.2011 passed by the respondent No.1 and order dated 18.7.2011 passed by the respondent No.2 at Annexures-E and G are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE HR