Karnataka High Court
Sri L Puttalingaiah S/O Lingaiah vs The Special Deputy Commissioner on 13 December, 2010
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2010
BEFORE 'A
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B.
WRIT PETITION NO.4370MOI«* 2o09~[SCA§s*I51A«-- _ Q A
BETWEEN
SR1 L.PU'1"'l'ALINGA1AH
S/O LINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT NIARIYAPPANARALYA -
NAGADEVANAHALLI ; "
GNANABHARATHIPOS'P . »
BANGALORE--5A60056_.....__2. PETITIONER
{Ex-3' R ADV. ,1
1 TITEE. COMMISSIONER
,- » BANGALORE DISTRICT
IROROAE;.13ANGA1DRE~S60o09
I ..fI'HE..ASSISTAN'r COMMISSIONER
= ., .13ANO;a.I,ORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION
K.G;RQAD, BANGALORE--560009
. 'SR: TVIUNIYAPPA @ MUNIYA
' ..Sr'O THIMMABOVI
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
[A] SMT. PEDDAKKA
W/O LATE MUN IYAPPA @ MUNIYA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
{B} SR1. PEDDANNA
S / O LATE MUNIYAPPA @ MUNIYA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
2
{C} SR1. M. RAMAiAH
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA @ MUNIYA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
RESPONDENTS 3{A) TO 3{C] ALL ARE
R / AT MARIYAPPANAPALYA NAGADEVANAHALLI VILLAGE GNANABHARATHI P.O BANGALORE--560056
4. SR1. B.S. RANGASWAMY S /O LATE SHAMABHOVE V NO.638, 14TH MAIN ROAD SRINAGAR, 9TH "A" CROSS BANGALORE * A fj~CQURT--.OI-ELDER I ' DT.'15--'1.1-«2C.1'0..V J .
SR1. B.S. SRINIVAS S/O LATE SHAMA_I3HOVi = AGED ABOUT BSYEARS ;g A "
N0.395, 14TH MAINRGAD 3RD PHASE, WESTOECHORIJ ROA13' BANGALORE-5ei300_,1Qj.= " " ' E-EINCE DEAD.B"{__HIS_ LR _ {A]' , SRI, REAIAIUNATH S»/.0' LATE'. VIRUPAKSHA SETTY AGEDABOUT 55 YEARS _ «R/AT NO.833, VENKATESWARA STORES AVENUE ROAD B-AAIGALORE560002 ELINOAIAH @ RANGAIAH A .. S/O LATE DEVE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/ AT MARIYAPPANAPALYA NAGADEVANAHALLI GNANABHARATHI POST BAN GALORE--560056 RESPONDENTS (BYISRE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD, HCGP FOR R1 & R2 SR1 RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SR. ADV., FOR SR1 NITYANANDA V. NAIK, ADV., FOR R3(A] TO R3(C] . EELETED §z11jE 3 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 225 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING To THIS WRIT I:-ETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.12.08, MADE BY THE R1, SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, IN SC.ST(A}40:2004_¢_O5 82:
MARKED AS ANNExURE--F IN THE WRIT PETITION-.LAND THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING; H I I __..m.0 R D ELIE I The petitioner has Vraisead.__ Cheiivltiilgté Order, dated 23-12-2008 the first respondent in thedutease in brief are that the 1andsVv"-.rheaSurinVg~._twO"'»-éleres at Survey.NO.26, Block No.33 (Né\";'.¥V_:vSy_.NOA..i33).""Of Nagadevanahalli Village were &g'I'Iante'd in 1953. He belonged tO Bovi :O:fT_:~ih€ enumerated Scheduled Castes. The SaguVal§_:C1hit contained the nOn--a1ienatiOn Clause Of ten xy;earS;... 3:' However, Rule 43(8) and the Rules under the 3' '-IV_M-ysore Land Revenue Code ;j prescribed that. if the * Niland is granted to a member Of the depressed Class, he Shall not alienate it at ail. On 30.12.1963, the respondent No.3 Sri Muniyappa Sold the property to One flfifi.
4 Sri Shaina Bovi, father of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 and in turn, Shama Bovi, sold it to Virupaksha".Se.tty, the respondent No.6 herein on 17 respondent Virupaksha Setty so.1d__the_-'propevrty the petitioner and one Sri D Lingaiah:'_'_alias"Ran'gaiah;_fthe respondent No.7 herein vselcondrl respondent Assistant .Comrn.iss'ivone_r. initiat.e.d...suo motu proceedings undgl; the Karnataka Scheduled C.as:t'e.s_ (Prohibition of Transfer of ['P.T.C.L. Act' for short]...---- to be dropped vide the seams dated 30-10~1982. The said ordereifas challenged by Way of an appeal or by wa,y}*~of writhpetition. Meanwhile, the petitioner and No.7 got the agricultural land in du,estion.'co_nii7erted for I1on--agricu1tural purpose. The conversion order was issued on 9.5.1983. On carving sites in the said land, the petitioner and the __respondent No.7 sold a number of sites to Sri I-I.T.S.Rao and nine other parties. Some of the purchasers of the 333 5 sites have also got the change of land use sanctioned on 11.09.1986.
3. When thus stood the state of_ respondent No.3 Mnniyappa filed 7.10.1995 before the Assistant the invalidation of the Sa1e9'c1.e_Veds9 thefrestorationd the lands. The Assistant Cornrnissioner,l1_ order, dated 20.03.1997 1 "1'e.je.cted respondent's application.
_theVV'Vsaid order, the third respondent 'filed,'~.1»an::""«appea1 before the Deputy Cor§1Inissior1er,'*yvho' 55. his order, dated 28.02.2000 9 t1*re_ appeal by rernanding the matter to the ASS1St3'i"1tv'9vCCl711II1iSS1O1'l€I'. The Assistant Commissioner, hiss' ' ordter, dated 09.08.2004 rejected the third iresp0rid.ent's application. The third respondent C ehallenged the said order by way of an appeal before the ""'Deputy Commissioner. By his order, dated 23.12.2008, the Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal by invalidating the sale deeds and by directing the figfi, 6 restoration of the lands to the legal representat-iyes of the original grantee. It is this order, Whie1';:V:isf"g:'k):eing assailed in this petition.
5. Sri D . R. Raj ashekh_Vara'ppa,"« . . i i "
counsel for the petitioner'is'L1i_on1its~.. that [re-s.pVo.nderittt' No.3 and/ or his legal reprpesentatives' .i[;aq'V1V'1fA1Qptu»f%;naintain one more application':'fo,r:: Once the matter has attair1ed:~t'h'eh*finaiityinl of the same property parties, the issue cannot be' after a long period of 13 years '-- i =6, VVRajashekharappa submits that in the eafliefntproceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, 1 No.3[a) was indeed served with the notice'-._'of"vt:he said proceedings. On suffering an order dropping the proceedings initiated under Section 4 of Act, the third respondent did not challenge "the same by filing a writ petition. In this regard, he relies on this Court's decision in the case of STHIPPERUDRAPPA v. STATE or KARNATAKA AND £3!-1., 7 OTHERS, reported in 2005(3) Kar.L.J. 563, wherein this Court has expressed the considered View that the question of entertaining the review petition in of the order, which has attained the finality _ of this Court in a writ petition wonld notat*Ta1l,V it 7 . Sri Raj ashekarappa-_ further' . __ A that the principle of res judieata has app1iic:atijen_tt proceedings initiated under _ fie sought to draw support froinlllthe of the Kerala High court m"ith.%;{ v. KAMALA SHE;m'Y'.' repo1?ted.cg'iil1a:::_'A!R'l 1973 KERALA 172. The re1evantV'e.pVaragVraph_ "the said decision is extracted hV_C*'r§'iE:inlt)e1owi--'A A _____ .. v _ .......... ..There is thus sufficient haathoritgv to hold that the principle of finality or igjonciusiveness of a prior decision or the general " principle or resjudicata is applicable even to quasi- AA judicial bodies like the Land Tribunals functioning under the Kerala Land Refomis Act. On principle it appears to us that this should be so, as these Tribunals are invested with the task of deciding important rights and have to do so on principles of natural justice and fairplay. In these £334.
8 circumstances, the rules of res judicata are applicable to them. We are, for the present content to understand the decision of a Division this Court in Workmen of the Cochin Ligttiteratjei' Corporation v. Paul Abrao (1974 Ker LT"6:1},:V'_asi'a ' l concession to the wide powers. C -Vispeciai. nature of the jurisdiction of :3 it rather than as roiling altogether 1 the."
applicability of the pnncip:lew--of resjadieata As that questionfis not 'before need not express ourfinal op3_inion:"" ~-._ _' » l " ' ~ ' _
8. Nextly, Sri. submits that the petitioner position by acting on firstilVoi'd'ei"f'efpltheir-lksslistant Commissioner, dated 30.10.1932; p He that the petitioner has paid en.ofi'mo~us eom?ersio,i1 fee, developed the land, formed » V1ay_o«:it« sold the sites to the third parties. H.T.NaIendra Prasad, the learned Goiéerhraaent Pleader appearing on behalf of the nifesppondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that nothing is in dispute in this case. That the land in question is a granted land, that the respondent No.3 belonged to the Scheduled Caste and that the land in question came to £35;
9 be sold in violation of the Rules cannot be disputed with any rate of success.
10. Sri Narendra Prasad submits.~wth_a:t order; dated 30.10.1982 cu1minating:=._in:_-the ld:<3plpi1igi;;of?s<;e proceedings initiated under Sections; of tlvie * was not at the instance it of the application filed The order.
dated 30.10.l'9?3'.2 in suo motu pmceedm order is not a x He would therefore support r "R orders passed by the authoritiesgh .
he learned Government Pleader further the Saguvali Chit contains the team. a ' mdembargo on the alienation of the land only fora period of ten years, the Rules in force at that time, R is, Rule 43(8) of the Rules under the Mysore Land "Revenue Code state that the land is granted to the members of the depressed class subject only to their executing the bond undertaking not to alienate the fififi.
10 granted land. He further submits that the trite position in law is that if there is any Conflict between the"-Rules and the grant conditions, the former shall the latter.
12. The learned GoVernme'nt'Pieade1"VSi1b1'hits that Section 11 of the for giving of primacy to_,.the pgroiriisions of 't1'1e..'P,f.E;;.C.L. Act. The provisions of the 'saiidiv S'ection are extracted hereinbelowzfih' o_vVe'rr'i:deV_other laws:- The prooAisioi_1s_AVV_ Act shall have effect vV'i1otu:itvhstoii»dingv«..d}iy:tf--~iing inconsistent therewith contrlxihriedxhin dianyvnither law for the time being in force or. cttstom, usage or contract or any fiectee or of a court, tribunal or other C' The last submission of Sri Narendra Prasad is that the petitioner has not challenged the order, 28.2.2000 passed by the Deputy Commissioner dremanding the matter to the Assistant Commissioner. Having failed to do so, the petitioner cannot question the jurisdiction. of the Assistant Commissioner in the HS}!.
11 subsequent proceedings, so contends the learned Government Pleader.
14. Sri Ravivarma Kumar, the learfiedf-.Se:1iorp Advocate appearing on behalf of Sri N for the respondent No.3 [a] to (c) Stlbrnits respondent was very much~.._a1ive=_vvhen vsiio ..3Inotu_* proceedings were initiated:_ -.._by the vvf?Assistant Commissioner, but thirdfr-es'pon'dent had no notice whatsoever of'-t_he :s'a'id- ::'proceedi.r1gs'."»"'A Therefore, the question __o--f "'hisiA1f:a.ccepting.the fgssistant Commissioners orderr._an--d' said orders would not arise at all.
15. VSriV_V_v"Riavivarma Kumar submits that the 'order; 10. 1982 is a collusive order passed only ,to.-.favoii'rv.._thie"'petitioner. He submits that the P.T.C.L. Act is"--Va social welfare legislation. There is no room for "equuitv'While applying the provisions of the said statute. to be applied with all its rigour. He submits that it WSection 11 of the P.T.C.L. Act contains a non--obstante clause, which prevaiis over the laws, customs, usages, figéi, 12 contracts and decrees of the Court, Tribunal or Authority. The sales effected by the petitioner in favour of the third parties are only in the nature of a contract. The provisions of P.T.C.L. Act notwithstanding the contracts entered.,.A4_into'A--t.::by contesting respondents with the peti,tii3r1er':.4...' it
16. The question.' that Vttwotuid for consideration is whether thetiddoctrine of judicata has application for the rnotti. '4 proceedings under the P.T.C.L. Act._=For d'ecidiip1g'ht.h._e' 'on hand, it is necessary provisions contained in Section 5 of the"P_4.'1'.C.xL._ Act". 4 iv '*5. Resumption and restitution of granted "a__Iands:-(1) Where, on application by any Viieiinierested person or on information given in A iuriting by any person or suamotu, and d after such enquiry as he deems necessary, the Assistant Commissioner is satisfied that the transfer of any granted land is null and void under subsection {1} of section 4, he rnay,~
(a) by order take possession of such land after evicting all persons in possession fifiti 13 thereof in such manner as may be prescribed:
Provided that no such order shall be made except after giving the person affected a reasonablei.
opportunity of being heard; \ V
(b) restore such land to i" it grantee or his legal heir.
reasonably practicabifeflltoiirestoreithe g_ to such grantee or legal--._heir,*llSIich.V shall be deemed"'---to have: vested A=.:tT't= Government free all The Gover'n{rLent" to a person V it the Scheduled Castes or in accordance dries to of land.
""1'7l.. A perL1Vsa1,_'l'ef4't:the afore--eXtracted provisions showgthat-Via} 3.11 appliiilation can be made by grantee or ipegallfll'"re'presentatives (b) the information 'V'a,fegar:dinglthe_j..forbidden alienation can be furnished by any party or so (c) the proceedings may be AA initiated suo motu by the Assistant Commissioner. A' --..V"Whien the Assistant Commissioner has initiated the suo almotu proceedings or acted on the information furnished by a third party and passes an order, the same cannot bind the grantee or the legal representatives of the 14 grantee. it is all the more so, when the grantee himself has not been put on any notice in those proceedings.
18. The whole intentment of the scheine of P.'l'.C.L. Act is that the depressed class not be exploited by luring them into sales. It is a social welfare leg1_s1ati.onj. l the depressed classes econpomically and"'les.tab1i_shdank egalitarian society.
19. If the Con1n'1tssioner has dropped the pVro'ceedeings7:'§for_the non¥production of the Saguvali Chit or non«tracing'o-f'_the"contemporary records or non- applying rules into" force, the same cannot have the ée"ffect?"of preventing a depressed class grantee from portals of the Assistant Commissioner again,' ' it It is profitable to refer to this Court's gddecision in the case of G.K.MALLIKARJUNAPPA v. ~7:I)EPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAVANGERE, reported in 2005(2) Kar.L.J 205, wherein the considered View RSPL 15 taken is that the P.T.C.L. proceedings are not_____in the nature of adversarial litigation. The intentmei1t.f"oi"*.the legislature that a depressed class grantee:"or.:'.his representative can seek the restoration of Viandlilat if it any time. The same is clear firornthe omission -._of.Vti1e legislature to prescribe any'-_p'eriod.v.of. filing the application for the__restVora'ti_onVV 'of._the'gra1'i'ted lands.
21. This Cour't~Lcalso' force in the Pleader, Sri Naren_d_ra conflict between the ofthe grant, the former prevail over the"l.atter.VV' case, as per Rule 43(8) of Rules; the' 1.<1on--alienation clause is of perpetual ' ;na.tVure;'~ti1otugh the grant certificate only prescribes the "no'r1'--aliei5.ation period of ten years. it .. V The iaw has to be applied with all its rigour. A it affects the interest of the purchaser or the subsequent purchasers cannot be a ground warranting the interference of this Court.
Egg;
16
23. The decisions relied upon Sri Rajashekharappa, the learned counsel for the do not come to the rescue of the petitionefin.:sfi§?"eair$ty§"» The decision in the case of d T is in the context of seeking theire-View. In. the«.ease_VOr1u hand, it is a case of» for restitution and not" seeldiig the earlier orders as such. placed on the Koran '5 cqseiisuprhj dsde»s.i§'nQ.t_i'niprove the case of the petititmer"étr1y"Vtfa}?} .The=_p'rovisi0ns of the Kerala Land Reforrris P.T.C.L. Act are not analogous; V' * V I» d T
24.v.»«.iNQt fivndinrigv anyinfirmity in the order passed byithe;Deputy=(fisihrnissioner, I decline to interfere in :7'u,_the matterfi hiVs'j_3:§.etiti0n is dismissed. N0 order as to it Costs'.
Sdftz Ifidge \'/{GR