Karnataka High Court
Syed Sab S/O Bashasab Goravagundagi vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 17 February, 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.200212/2017 (KLR-RES)
& NO.201568/2017
BETWEEN:
Syed Sab S/o Bashasab Goravagundagi
Aged about 51 years,
Occ. Agriculture
R/o Moratagi, Tq. Sindgi,
Dist. Vijayapur.
... Petitioner
(By Sri G.G.Chagashetti, Advocate)
AND
1. The State of Karnataka
By its Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
M.S.Building, Bangalore 01.
2. The Assistant Commissioner,
Indi, Sub-Division, Indi.
Dist. Vijayapur.
... Respondents
(By Sri K.M.Ghate, AGA)
2
These writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari
and to quash the order dated 17.10.2007 passed by the
second respondent in No.WATAN.CTL.CR.17/2006-07
produced at Annexure-D and etc.
These petitions coming on for preliminary hearing this
day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
The top noted writ petitions are filed seeking writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 17.10.2007 passed by respondent No.2 in No.WATAN/CTL/CR.17/2006-07 as per Annexure-D.
2. The facts leading to the top noted writ petitions are as under ;-
The petition lands are admittedly governed under the provisions of the Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950 (for short the 'Act'). The petitioner has pleaded in the petition that Inamadars namely Ambadas and Devidas Naraharrao Kulkarni 3 moved an application seeking re-grant of the petition lands after the abolition of the said Act. The authorities have re-granted the petition lands by order dated 25.06.1954. Pursuant to the order, mutations were effected.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the said Inamadar subsequent to the re-grant order has sold the petition lands to the father of the present petitioner under registered sale-deed dated 20.06.1973. The petitioner contended that petitioner's father was put in exclusive possession and enjoyment over the petition lands pursuant to the registered sale deed executed by the Inamadar. After the death of petitioner's father, the present petitioner has succeeded to the petition lands. The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that respondent No.2 without affording any opportunity to the petitioner passed an order on 15.02.2002 and set aside the sale deed dated 20.06.1973 and consequently ordered for forfeiture of petition lands to the 4 Government. The said order was questioned by the petitioner's father before this Court in W.P.No.14927/2002. This Court having examined the material on record allowed the writ petition by holding that the order of forfeiture is passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The writ petition was allowed. The earlier order dated 15.02.2002 was set- aside and the matter was remitted back to respondent No.2 to hold fresh enquiry.
4. The petitioner submits that this Court remitted the matter for fresh enquiry on 30.11.2006. The petitioner's father died on 07.11.2006. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent has passed the impugned order as per Annexure-D without affording any opportunity to the legal representatives of deceased Bashasab i.e., the present petitioner. However, the learned Additional Government Advocate would support the order passed by the 2nd respondent and would specifically contend before this 5 Court, that order under challenge does not suffer from any illegality or infirmities.
5. The points that would arise for consideration are as follows;
1. Whether 2nd respondent erred in invoking provisions of section 4(2) of Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950 and thereby order for forfeiture of petition land to the Government on the ground that there is violation under section 4(2) of the above said Act?
2. Whether on account of inordinate delay the respondent No.2 justified in ordering for forfeiture of petition land and as such warrants interference by this Court?
6. The 2nd respondent by invoking provisions of section 4(2) of Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950 has ordered for forfeiture of 6 petition land to the Government on the premise that the Inamadars in whose favour re-grant order was passed have not sought sanction to alienate the petition lands. The 2nd respondent by totally misreading the provisions of above Act has ordered forfeiture of land to the Government. For better understanding the section 4(2) of Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950 is cull out as under;
"4(2) On or after the commencement of the Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition), the Bombay Service Inams (Useful to Community) Abolition, the Bombay merged Territories Miscellaneous Alienations and the Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition of Office) (Amendment) Act, 2000 (hereinafter, in this section, referred to as "the commencement date"), the occupancy of the land re-granted under sub-section (1) may be transferred by the occupant for agricultural 7 purpose, and no previous sanction or no objection certificate from the Collector or any other authority shall be necessary for such transfer. After such transfer, the land shall be continued to be held by such transferee occupant on new and impartiable tenure (Occupant Class II) in accordance with the provisions of the Code:"
7. If the order under challenge as per Annexure-D passed by 2nd respondent is examined in terms of section 4(2) of the above said Act, the impugned order under challenge is not at all tenable and the same is passed on gross violation of section 4(2) of the above said Act. Section 4(2) of the above said Act clearly states that occupancy of land re-granted under sub-section (1) may be transferred by the occupant for agricultural purpose, and no previous sanction or no objection certificate is required from competent authority. Admittedly in the present case on hand it is 8 not the case of the authority that alienation was not for agricultural purpose. Admittedly, the petitioner is cultivating the land in question and as such the order under challenge is arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of section 4(2) of the above said Act and hence the same is liable to be quashed by this Court. The grantee is not required to seek permission to alienate the petition land and hence there is no violation of terms of grant and hence the impugned order passed by 2nd respondent suffers from serious infirmities and the same deserves to be quashed by this Court. Accordingly point No.1 formulated by this Court is answered in affirmative.
8. The next point for consideration is even if there is violation, whether 2nd respondent authority could have taken action after lapse of 29 years. The order under challenge is also liable to be quashed on the ground of delay in initiating the proceedings though there is no violation. However, even if there is sale deed 9 executed in violation of provisions of Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950, still the initiation of proceedings by the 2nd respondent needs to be interfered by this Court on the ground of inordinate delay in seeking restoration of land on the ground of violation of conditions.
9. The counsel for the petitioner buttressing his arguments has relied on judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav and others V/s Hari Kishore Yadav (D) Thr. LRs and others reported in 2018(1) Kar. L.R.1(SC) wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that there should not be any unreasonable delay by authorities and power for taking action and for restoration of lands, has to be exercised within a reasonable time. In the present case on hand Inamadars have sold the petition land for valuable sale consideration as per sale deed dated 20.06.1973. The petitioner's father was put in possession pursuant to the registered sale deed executed by Inamadar in favour 10 of petitioner's father and petitioner's father name was duly mutated in the revenue records. The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that, time must be reckoned reasonably, not only in order to preserve rights and advantages a party possess, but equally to protect each party from the losses he ought not to suffer. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that any action taken after long lapse of time even in the absence of period of limitation, is arbitrary and opposed to concept of rule of law. The judgment cited by the petitioner is squarely applicable to the present case on hand. Accordingly point No.2 is answered in the affirmative.
10. For the reasons stated supra, the impugned order passed by 2nd respondent dated 17.10.2007 in No. WATAN.CTL.CR.17/2006-07 as per Annexure-D suffers from serious infirmities and the same is liable to be quashed. Accordingly the Writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 17.10.2007 in No. WATAN.CTL.CR.17/2006-07 passed by 2nd respondent 11 as per Annexure-D is quashed and set aside. No order as to cost.
SD/-
JUDGE sn/*MK