Karnataka High Court
Sri B V Chandrashekar S/O B ... vs The Special Deputy Commissioner on 10 December, 2021
Bench: Ashok S.Kinagi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK.S.KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.39137 OF 2011 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
SRI B.V.CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O B.VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/A THYAGARAJ ROAD
ANEKAL TOWN, KASABA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MITHUN G.A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
BANGALORE
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION,
BANGALORE
3. SRI MUNIRAJU
S/O MUNIYAPPA
MAJOR
4. SRI SAMPATH KUMAR
S/O KAVERAPPA,
MAJOR
2
BOTH ARE R/A SOLUR VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SANEDESH KUMAR, HCGP, FOR R1 & R2;
SRI K.R.NAGESH, ADVOCATE, FOR R3 & R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R2, IN CASE
NO.KSC/ST/71/06-07 DATED 23.08.2010 VIDE
ANNEXURE-D & ORDER PASSED BY R1, IN CASE
NO.SC.ST(A) 92/10-11 DATED 05.09.2011 VIDE
ANNEXURE-E.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated
23.08.2010 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-D
and the order dated 05.09.2011 passed by respondent
No.1 vide Annexure-E, has filed this writ petition.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition
are that:
The land measuring 29 guntas in Sy.No.95 of Solur
Village, Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk was granted in favour
of Sri Donneppa in the year 1977-78 with a condition of
non-alienation/in terms of Sub-rule 8(a) of Rule 43 of the
Mysore Land Revenue Rules. Sri Donneppa died leaving
behind his three sons namely Prakash, Muniraju and
Kaverappa. The legal representatives of the original
grantee namely Prakash, Muniraju and Kaverappa and
their family members have jointly executed a registered
sale deed in favour of the petitioner under a registered
sale deed dated 04.04.2001. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed
an application invoking Section 5 of the Karnataka
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of
Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'the PTCL
Act') alleging that the said sale is in violation of Section 4
of the PTCL Act. Respondent No.2 allowed the application
vide order dated 23.08.2010 and declared the registered
sale deed executed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 as null and
void and restored the land. The petitioner being aggrieved
by the order passed by respondent No.2, filed an appeal
before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 confirmed the
order passed by respondent No.2 vide order dated
05.09.2011 at Annexure-E. The petitioner being aggrieved
by the order passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, has filed
this writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and also learned
counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
respondent No.2 without considering whether the land in
question is a granted land and further whether the said
land was granted either on upset price or a free grant or
for a price less than upset price have proceeded to pass
impugned order. Respondent No.2 without recording the
said finding has proceeded to pass the impugned order. He
further submits that respondent No.1 without examining
the said aspect as confirmed the order passed by
respondent No.2. In order to buttress his argument, he
places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of
Pedda Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka reported in I.L.R.
1993 KAR 551. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to
allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent
Nos.3 and 4 supports the impugned order and submits that
the land is a granted land. Respondent No.2 has recorded
the finding that it is a granted land. He further submits
that the orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 are in
accordance with law. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to
dismiss the writ petition.
6. Learned HCGP supports the impugned order.
7. Heard and perused the records and considered
the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
8. From perusal of the records, respondent No.2
has not recorded a finding that whether the land in
question is a granted land and further whether the said
land was granted either on the upset price or a free grant
or for a price less than upset price. In order to attract the
provisions of the PTCL Act, it is for respondent Nos.4 and 5
to establish that the said land is a granted land. Once, if
respondent Nos.4 and 5 establishes that it is a grated land,
then the provisions of the PTCL Act are applicable. In the
present case, respondent Nos.4 and 5 have not produced
any documents to show that the said land is a granted
land. Respondent No.2 has not recorded any finding on the
said facts.
9. In view of the law laid by the Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Pedda Reddy (supra), it is
observed in para No.6 which reads as under:
"6. The legal position is that the
Assistant Commissioner cannot declare the
sale of the land granted under the provisions of
the Rules as void unless he records the
following findings:
i) that the grant was made in favour of a
person belonging to scheduled caste or
scheduled tribe;
ii) that the grant was either on upset
price or a free grant or for a price less than
upset price; and
iii) that the alienation had taken place
within the period of prohibition prescribed
under the Rules."
10. I do not find any such findings in the orders
passed by respondent Nos.1 & 2. Thus, the finding of facts
necessary for the purpose of exercising the jurisdiction are
not recorded by respondent Nos.1 & 2. I am of the view
that the orders of R1 & R2 cannot be sustained. Hence, on
these grounds, the writ petition is liable to be allowed.
11. In view of the above discussion, I pass the
following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned order dated 23.08.2010
passed by respondent No.2 vide
Annexure-D and the impugned order
dated 05.09.2011 passed by
respondent No.1 vide Annexure-E are
set aside.
iii. The matter is remitted back to
respondent No.2.
iv. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider
the points raised by the Division Bench
of this Court in the case of Pedda
Reddy (supra) and pass an appropriate
order in accordance with law.
All the contentions of the parties are kept open.
The parties are directed to appear before respondent
No.1 on 17.01.2022 without waiting for any further notice.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ssb
