Karnataka High Court
Sri. Hutchaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 February, 2018
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna
-: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
WRIT PETITION No.2082/2011 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
SRI HUCHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O. LATE BOGI @ BOGAIAH,
R/AT PANCHAVALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
PERIYAPATNA TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 107. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: B.S. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSORE DISTRICT,
MYSORE - 570 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
HUNSUR SUB DIVISION
HUNSUR - 571 105.
4. SRI VEERABHADRAPPA,
DEAD BY HIS LRs.
4(a) SRI PUTTASWAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O. LATE HALAGAPPA,
4(b) SMT. AMANNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
-: 2 :-
D/O. LATE HALAGAPPA,
4(c) SMT. PUTTAKKAYAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
D/O. LATE HALAGAPPA,
4(d) SMT. SAKAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
D/O. LATE HALAGAPPA,
4(e) SMT. GOWRAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
D/O. LATE HALAGAPPA,
4(f) SMT. NINGAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
D/O. LATE HALAGAPPA,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
PANCHAVALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT.
5. SRI SHIVARAJU
S/O. PUTTASWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
6. SIR. KUMARA
A/O. PUTTASWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT PANCHAVALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT: SAVITHRAMMA, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3;
SRI S.A. SABOOR, ADVOCATE FOR R-4;
SRI R.B. SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R-5 & R-6)
*****
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3-ASST.
COMMISSIONER, HUNSUR SUB-DIVISION, HUNSUR MADE IN
REFERENCE DATED 26.04.1983, COPY SUBMITTED AT
ANNEXURE-G, AND DATED 09.03.2009-COPY SUBMITTED AT
-: 3 :-
ANNEXURE-H, AND ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2-
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DATED 21.09.2010-COPY
SUBMITTED AT ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Though this writ petition is listed for preliminary hearing in 'B' group, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, it is heard finally.
2. Petitioner has assailed order dated 26/04/1983, passed by the third respondent/Assistant Commissioner, Hunsur Sub-Division, Hunsur (Annexure- G), in reference No.SPT PPN 67/82-83 and order dated 09/03/2009, passed by the Assistant Commissioner in PTCL/24/2006-07 (Annexure-H) as well as order dated 21/09/2010, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore, in reference No.PTCL 01/2009-10 (Annexure-J).
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner and in possession and enjoyment of land bearing Sy.No.71, measuring 4 acres and after durasthi, new Sy.No.87 has been assigned, which measured 3 acres 30 guntas. According to the petitioner, the said extent of land -: 4 :- was granted to his father on 18/09/1955 as he belonged to Scheduled Caste community. Petitioner's father sold the said land to fourth respondent-Veerabhadrappa since deceased represented by his legal representatives and under a registered sale deed dated 19/12/1967. That according to the petitioner, although his father had alienated the land in question, possession of the same was not delivered till the death of petitioner's father. That the RTC records stood in the name of petitioner's father upto the year 2000. That petitioner's mother made an application for change of khata from the name of her husband late Bogi to her name. Tahsildar by mutation proceeding MR.No.INH-3/2001-02, dated 16/02/2002, entered the name of petitioner's mother in the RTC records. Original fourth respondent Veerabhadrappa being aggrieved by the said order, assailed order dated 16/02/2002 by filing an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 ("the Act" for short), before the Assistant Commissioner, who allowed the appeal and passed an order on 07/09/2006, in R.A.No.171/2004-05 and entered the name of original fourth respondent in the revenue records. Petitioner's -: 5 :- mother-Smt. Sannamma being aggrieved by order dated 07/09/2006, preferred Revision Petition No.66/2006-07 under Section 136(3) of the Act. The matter was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner to hold a fresh enquiry under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "PTCL Act") and Rules, 1979 made there under.
4. Even prior to that, in the year 1982, petitioner's father late Bogi @ Bogiah had filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act for resumption and restitution of granted land. The third respondent/Assistant Commissioner, on holding an enquiry held that the alienation had been made by the said applicant after a period of ten years and therefore, there was no violation of the terms and conditions of grant and hence, rejected that application by order dated 26/04/1983 vide Annexure-G. Petitioner's mother Sannamma made another application on 21/10/2006, seeking re-grant of the land. The Assistant Commissioner held that, there was no scope for reviewing the earlier order passed on 26/04/1983 (Annexure-G) and dismissed -: 6 :- the said application. Sannamma, being aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner in PTCL.No.24/2006- 27 dated 09/03/2007 preferred an appeal before the second respondent/Deputy Commissioner, which appeal was registered in PTCL.No.1/2009-10. The second respondent/Deputy Commissioner, by placing reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in Muniswamy vs. State of Karnataka [1998(1) KLJ 607], held that the appeal was not maintainable and it was open for the petitioner to avail the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. Being aggrieved by the order of the second respondent/Deputy Commissioner, dated 21/09/2010, petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6 as well as perused the material on record.
6. Petitioner's counsel submits that petitioner's mother, Sannamma has also died. That Sannamma's appeal before the second respondent/Deputy Commissioner could not have been dismissed on the -: 7 :- ground of maintainability as Section 5-A of the PTCL Act clearly stipulates that any person aggrieved by an order passed under the provisions of the PTCL Act could prefer an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner having jurisdiction within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order vis-à-vis the Deputy Commissioner ought to have considered the appeal on merits and in accordance with law rather than dismissing the appeal on the ground of maintainability.
7. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the expression "any person" in Section 5-A of the PTCL Act would include even a grantee who is aggrieved by an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and that the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner was maintainable in the instant case. Section 5-A of the PTCL Act reads as under:
"5-A. Appeal to the Deputy Commissioner:
(1) Any person aggrieved by an order passed after the commencement of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) (Amendment) Act, 1984 by the Assistant Commissioner to take possession of land under -: 8 :- clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 or to restore the land under clause (b) of the said sub-section may prefer an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner having jurisdiction within a period of three months from the date on which the order was communicated to him:
Provided that the Deputy Commissioner may admit an appeal preferred against such order after the period referred to in sub- section (1) if satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within that period:
Provided further that the Deputy Commissioner shall admit an appeal against an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner before the date of such commencement if, or the said date, a writ petition preferred against such order or an appeal preferred against the order passed in such writ petition is pending in any Court."
On a reading of the said provision, it becomes clear that even a grantee or the legal representative of the grantee is entitled to maintain an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner if he is aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The appellate remedy is not restricted to only the purchaser of granted land. In the -: 9 :- circumstances, the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 21/09/2010 (Annexure-J) is quashed.
The matter is remanded to the second respondent/Deputy Commissioner to consider the appeal in accordance with law and to dispose of the same on merits.
8. Petitioner is permitted to substitute himself in place of his mother who is since deceased.
9. Writ petition is disposed in the aforesaid terms.
Sd/-
JUDGE S*