Karnataka High Court
Bhadre Gowda vs The Deputy Commissioner on 7 June, 2011
Author: H.G.Ramesh
Bench: H.G.Ramesh
4. Niamatha
I
IN THE: HIGH COURT OF KARN§TA1x:A_
DATED THIS THE 7m QAY GE'iJ'{;NE;' 20 2 'V j
PRESENT g*' ' ~_ -=.-
THE HONBLE MR.J.S'§VKHEHARV'CHI1§:F ;Jf{.??.Sj'I_:§.'if:';
THEIfilVBLEAfl{JU$ECEEiG§§%%§SH
WRIT APPEAL No.51:»:!-201.: (SC/ST)
?,Eg}'¥z:Er§LG0\A7<i_a '
S/o.1\/Iari Czawda _
Aged 59 .. 1
2. Pankaja1a:;ri2.a:'_ . «.
W / 0.'1':5u*;e_ Sgmé f1;G0Wda
Aged 48.yV€a'rs.V_ *
3. Manju.natha
S / o.1ate-Some
Aged_ 26 years' ' '
V Dy/oifa, V' Some Gofivda
% - '%":£€d%2A4%%:J¢&FS
u " .,:'~§-$1 fife"-'jéjc»>tSA'}T>:V1Vi'Vr1g at Bekya Village
'P_eri}fapa.£na T aluk
Maiscre District. ...A eflants
.! ._ 1313
(By Sri.T.A.Karumbaiah, Advocate]
1; The: Deputy Commissioner
" Mysore Distri<:t,Mysor€:.
2. The Assistant Cammissioner
Hunsur Sub~D:visiQr:
Hunsurg Mysore: District.
3. Devamma
W/0.CheEuvaiah
Eiged 65 years
' . .,l\fIysOre District.
ix.)
4. Kalyanamma
W/0.Sani:iaiah
Aged 41 years
5. Marijunath
S/0.B0mmaraya
Aged 33 years
6. Devendra .
S/ofiommaraya
Aged 33 years
7. Ravi
S/0.B0rI1marVaya
Aged 30 yeare
83 Umesh . '
S/0.Boinm.z"1r_a§7a'--. .
AgeVc1i_2_8 "y§lE11';Ci%: :_ _ , V
9. saijthg. R g
S/0.'-B0mni.ar'a3:%a5_l'v«
Aged yeare 4'
'are reVsi'di_1VfV1Vg" at in
V-Beliye. Village,' '£3-ei*iyapatna Taluk
l..Resp0ndents
g§§3,r':Sri B.Veerappa, AGA for R1 and R2,
_ g H. Mohan Kumar, Adv, for R3~9)
fFhisvWrit Appeal is filed 1.1/8 4 of the Karnaiaka High
Cauri: 33:: praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ
" i'eiii_tioIi N<:>.4l3lO/2010 dated 10.01.2011,
This Writ Appeal earning on for preliminary hearing
this day, Chief Justice delivered the following :
JUDGMENT
JsS.KI-IEHAR, CeJ. (Oral) :
Ah extent of «ii aeres 0f land in Sy.No.85 €Oie:3'.N<::,liil iii the revemie esiegie of Beiijgga Village in Peiiyapatna Taluléi lviysere Bisiriei VVQS granied iii §:3:a«'eui* ef Cheiuvaiah er:
We §*'w«xf' w ti "Mm»vr-ummvfifll' F:
xii ammm 1 ., o4,oe.1955_ The "'Saguvali em" (posse4ssi_oertj*,":g:ant certificate} was issued in favour of 29.05.1955, On Ol'lO.l952:;"""th€ e.o::s(«";ie:§a_:l'-g:~ai:.;;ee;
Cheluvaiah sold the grant llanidhlto1"Narasin:_hae'hari; Narasirnhaehari in turn',ll._L"'s~o_ld it 'to and Eregowda, on 22.2.;__19?3 said:v._AgrHa:ht land to Marideve Gowda. V A i' V :2. Thea" g:fai*iteel'::'iie'.V.ofiheluvaiah moved an application" Commissioner, Hunsur the Karnataka Scheduled Castes.' and VS'eh.eLdu'led:_'Trihes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Act)'.:1978u(hereinafter referred to as 'PTCL' Act] of the grant land sold by him. The fl"'As'sisté;_¥*it Commissioner, accepted the prayer made by an order dated 21.04.1982. The aforesaid order ixrasfiaissed keeping in view, the mandate contained in éeetliony 4 of the PT CL Act. Section 4 aforementioned is l V' ., being eittraeted hereunder:
"4. Prohibition of transfer of granted lands - (I) Notwithstanding anything in any law, agreement, eontraet or instrument, any transfer of granted land made either before or after the commencement of this Act; in eontravention of the terms of the grant of such land or the law providing' for such grant, or suh~ section (2) shall be null and Void and no right, title or interest in soeh land shall he iéozzvefged or be deemed ever to have eonveyed by such transfer.
{2} No person shall, after the Commencement of this Act? transfer or acquire by transfer any-._granted land Without the previous pern1issio.n~_ of the Government. '' (8) The provisions of sub»seetier_is . {dis}, shall apply also to the sale ofvany land e>':ee'ntiovn"
a decree or order of a Civil Court or of anyaward or__ "
order of any other authority," ..
3. Dissatisfied with Commissioner, the Co:neern'edV_preierred an appeal before the Deputy District. The Deputy iby his order dated
30.o8.i98ii; by the Assistant Dissatisfied with the orders arid 30.08.1985 (referred to herejlnabove), vendee approached this Court by filing Zwrit . No. 16486/ 1985. T he aformentioned writ be dismissed. on 2108,1987, The legal batt}-e between the original grantee i.e. Cheiuvaiah and the it oeeneerned transferee came to an end with the disposal of .' V€ri't'di'Petition i\io.16488/£985. Therenpon, the grant iand " reverted back to the original grantee ic€&9 Cheiuvaiah. 4E The origins} grantee i.e., Cheinvaiah again sold a part of the grant iand rneasnringf 3 aeres 3§ gtintas {out at X} as "git/"m.% ..,m.W.m-
«mm» 5 the totai grant land measuring 4 acres}..tov_uSorn0egoWd'a--.onT.__ 03.02.1902. Yet again, the oi::gii;é.1' j:.g':-gaiteé. approached the Assistant: _{_:0rn0ri"3.issioner,--"--1. Division. seeking to repudiatVeu..the_ instan_t1s5a1e':§in favour of Sornegowda, again under thexPTCL Act. The Assistant Conirnissioner-,0 1'1i1nsu_r.._:0V;§iib§'i3ivision by order dated 25.05. deeié.re'd'::th'ei..sa1e dated 03.02.1992 made by ChaflU€g(:):\&'(ft:§i"1Ii ofS_oine'gowda as null and Void ie. in Violstioh the eegntained under Section 4 of the CL "A.r.:bt._ vifitdh the order passed by the Assistsnt' . Hunsur Sub--DiVision, the transferee 4«atss.ai1ed 0"th'e,o'rder by preferring an appeal before the«§la]3uep1ity xCernrn_issioner, Mysore Division Bench. The said however, dismissed by an order dated
30..._'T'i§e orders dated 25.05.1999 and 30.11.2010 (referred Eiereinabove) were assailed by the transferee before ;t.his'.Court by ffling Writ Petition No.41310/10. The 0 saidkwrit petition Came to be dismissed on 10.01.2011. The diiinstéint writ appeai, has been preferred by the appeiiant so it "es to assail the order passed by the iearned Sing1e Judge dated 10.01.2011 whereby, the Writ Petition 1\1o.4131O/10 assaiiing the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Eiiinstir §3n'e--DiiJisien and the Eietizity fornrnissiener. 6 District, elated 25.05.1999 and 3Q__,li.20i{} §Lx§a"%*"%"'%«€.,»* 'Eire; 9 respeetively5:F'er the same reasons, as were by Mysore this court when the earlier sale made grantee Came to be ehallengetl.:h'ef0re Petition N0.l6486/1985, we finti«vnezA_lilnfirrr:ity in it ' passed by the learned the Vxfrit Petition No.413Vit1/A20ire"'x;£l&i¢tier.aer lelateci"'V3iO.01.2Oi 1, as the sale made by .Aiinjr)ermissible, and as such, void 4 of the PTCL Act [extracted 5her_.e'iVn'V'at:eVe}§j ,< : l Despite'.'o_14,1r_gafsresaid conclusion, it is imperative for us not etelleaife the'niatter without examining the further are liable to flow after the grantee the sale made by him, set aside. It is to travel a little further and determine the eat of Violation of Seetien 4 cf the PTCL A '~:t_"3AXVet;"=§.Vherein, the original grantee repeatedly sells the grant land, and then seeks annulment of the sale These are eases Where the vendor successfully reaps the benefit of his own wrong. This case, like others dealt with by us, reveals the misuse of a legislative enactment fer persenal gains. in the first instance, the original grantee Cheiuvaiah said the grant lanti en i)itt0,i982r Having stieeeetied in getting the ;rit%aiiii 7 ;
aforesaid sale declared as void, the grant landfie'a.nie"'tc be restored back to him. Fully aware of the faet:"that not have sold the grant land,_»Ahe_4se§d"lVit*ajgetV"againhte Sornegcwda on 0332,1992. Cheliivaiall e{"gaiiif:'s:ieV;§'e--e:iie_d ind" "
getting the second sale so aste retrieve the land. The we determine is, whether having the original grantee is entitled to retain received by him'?. We repeatectsales at the hands of the original the offence of cheating underjthe th.-enlndian Penal Code 1860. A personlfiwhol eh'ea_:ts'l,'v«_.is-Jclefinitely not entitled to seek restoration'--«.,ot*the, giant-"lland and retain the consideration by hitn'vby.«'sale thereof. It is therefore, that we 'd.esi.re grant liberty to the appellants to recover tizelsalel ebjnsideraticn paid by Soinegowda to Cheluvaiah on as the grant land has been restored to lll.j..Chelnvaiah (now his legal heirs). The other alternative, as fife have concluded hereinabeve, is not available to the "appellants in View of the Section 4 ef the PTCL Act. Cheluvaiah (his legal heirs as is the position in this case] are certainly net entitled ts yetain the eensideratien reeeived by them? 'eased en a in Vieiatien sf Seetien -ii 8 of the PTCL Act. Thus; it shall he epen to the appellants herein to seek the refund of the sale eensitielratihon galeng with interest thereon, if they are so adVise<lil',~-..b},iA_iproeee6.ing_._ against the respondents through amount is unilaterally not refunded;l'*w.
6. it also needs to that when a grantee repeatedly the it is open to the Vendee to initiate against him. Such mpéated of cheating. Even though our hands may not be availa.lv3llel'vt_oi' against Cheluvaiah, who has since determination shall Certainly deter ' afifiati to iii?" original' granteesig misusing the legislative ' st enaetinient t'gi'1d€f reference for personal monitory gains. aforesaid observation, the instant Writ anneal disposed of.
! Ssisa Sinai Easties Slc/~ index: Y/N