Karnataka High Court
Sri Venkatarayappa @ ... vs Smt Sailaja 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.20588 OF 2019 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
SRI. VENKATARAYAPPA @ VENKATARAMANAPPA
S/O LATE KOTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF DOMBARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AMARESH A ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. SAILAJA
D/O BHEEMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF KUMBARAPETE,
AGRAHARA, MALUR TOWN - 563 130.
2. SRI. M B MANJUNATH
S/O S B SUJATHA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
3. M B UPENDRA
S/O S B SUJATHA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
2
RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE
RESIDING AT NO 340,
3RD CROSS KUMBARAPETE,
MALUR TOWN - 563 130.
4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KOLAR SUB DIVISION,
KOLAR - 563 102.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOLAR DISTRICT,
KOLAR - 563 101.
6. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
MULTISTORIED BUILDING,
VIDHANA VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.J. JAGADEESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3
SRI. M. SANDESH KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-4 TO R-6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR SUB-DIVISION,
KOLAR DATED 17.5.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR IN CASE
DATED 28.1.2019 VIDE ANENXURE-B.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 02.12.2021, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The petitioner being aggrieved by the order
dated 17.05.2017, passed by respondent No.4 vide
Annexure-A and also order dated 28.01.2019, passed
by respondent No.5 vide Annexure-B, has filed this
writ petition.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition
are as under:
The petitioner is the owner in possession of land
bearing Sy.No.189 measuring to an extent of 3 acres
situated at Dombarahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Malur
Taluk. The petitioner had purchased the schedule
property from his vendor namely Smt. S. B. Sujatha
and her two sons namely M.B.Manjunath and
M.B.Upendra, i.e., respondent Nos.2 and 3, under
registered sale deed dated 22.08.2002. After
purchasing the said land, the said property was
transferred in the name of the petitioner in the
revenue records. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed an
application under Section 5 of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 ('the PTCL Act' for short), seeking for declaration
of registered sale deed as null and void and for
resumption of land. The respondent No.4 after
holding an enquiry, passed an order dated
17.05.2017, allowing the application filed by
respondent Nos.1 to 3. The petitioner aggrieved by
the order passed by respondent No.4 preferred an
appeal before respondent No.5. The respondent No.5
dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner vide order
dated 28.01.2019. Hence this petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and
learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned
HCGP for respondent Nos.4 to 6.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that respondent Nos.4 and 5 failed to consider that
the respondent Nos.1 to 3 failed to furnish the original
grant certificate to establish that said land is a granted
land under the category of SC-ST. He further submits
that respondent No.4 directed the area Tahsildar to
produce the original records, whereas the Tahsildar
responded to the direction issued by respondent No.4
stating that no original records are found. The
respondent Nos.1 to 3 without producing the original
grant certificate under the category of SC-ST, filed an
application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act after 26
years of the said grant. In support of his argument,
he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court
in the case of N.P.MALLAPPA VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
CHIKMAGALUR & ORS. [2018 (4) KCCR 2936];
KRISHNAMURTHY VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
CHIKAMAGALUR & ORS. [ILR 2002 KAR 3584];
A.RAMAKRISHNA VS. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE DISTRICT & ORS. [2016 (5) KCCR 1278].
Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ
petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that the land is a
granted land and the provisions of the PTCL Act are
applicable. He further submits that respondent Nos.4
and 5 after considering the material on record were
justified in passing the impugned orders. Hence, on
these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.
6. Learned HCGP supports the impugned orders.
7. Perused the records and considered the
submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
8. The property in question was standing in the
name of Smt.S.B.Sujatha and respondent Nos.2 and 3
as on the date of execution of registered sale deed.
The said Smt. Sujatha and respondent Nos.2 & 3,
have jointly executed the registered sale deed dated
22.08.2002, in favour of the petitioner. On the
strength of the aforesaid registered sale deed, the
revenue records in respect of the said property was
transferred in the name of the petitioner. Respondent
Nos.1 to 3 filed an application in the year 2008 under
Section 5 of the PTCL Act alleging that the land in
question was granted to their mother under SC-ST
category on 30.09.1982, and they belong to
Scheduled Caste and land was sold in favour of the
petitioner, by their mother and respondent Nos.2 & 3.
The said sale transaction is in violation of Section 4 of
the PTCL Act.
9. As per Section 3(b) of the PTCL Act, the
definition of "granted land", it is seen that to bring any
granted land within the definition, the condition
precedent is that such land should have been granted
to a person belonging to either Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe. It is to be remembered here itself
that under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act and
various other provisions like the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act, the Land Grant Rules, etc., time and
again provisions are made to encourage cultivation
and for grant of lands to the persons who do not own
land or who belong to either Depress Class or who are
below the poverty line. In a loose sense, all such
granted lands cannot be the land coming within the
purview of Section 3(b) of the PTCL Act as stated and
as is defined, the land must have been granted only to
the person, who belongs to either Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe. If the grant is for any other reason
and even if incidentally such grantee belongs to
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, in my view, the
PTCL Act is not attracted. In view of the law laid
down by this Court in the case of SHRI ABDUL HAQ
SHAMSHUDDIN SAHAB VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTARA
KANNADA, KARWAR (W.P.No.36310/1998 DD. 6.6.2002),
considering similar question as to the grant under the
Land Revenue Act or the Land Grant Rules to a person
belonging to and only on that count the grant or
conferment of right under the Land Reforms Act, this
Court has held that to invoke the provisions of the
PTCL Act, it must be shown that the land was granted
to a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe only on that count and not otherwise.
As such, reiterating the same principles in my view to
bring a land within the definition of "granted land" as
per Section 3(b) of the PTCL Act, as well as the
applicability and invoking the provisions of the PTCL
Act, it is mandatory and necessary to show that the
land in question was granted to Smt. S.B.Sujatha only
on the ground that she belongs to Depress Class or
Community.
10. In the present case, the respondents have
produced the grant certificate. The grant certificate
does not reflect that it was allotted to
Smt.S.B.Sujatha as she belong to Depress Class or
Community. Merely because land was granted in
favour of Smt.S.B.Sujatha, and she belongs to
Scheduled Caste, the provisions of the PTCL Act are
not applicable. Further, merely the document styled
as 'Certificate of Grant' cannot be construed that land
was a granted land. It is for the authority to look into
the recitals and not only the title. In order to know
the real nature of the document, one has to look into
the recitals of the document and not the title of the
document. The intention is to be gathered from the
recitals in the deed, the conduct of the parties and the
evidence on record. It is settled law that question of
construction of a document is to be decided by finding
out the intention of the executant. The said view is
supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of B.K.MUNIRAJU VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA &
ORS. [AIR 2008 SC 1438]. The respondent Nos.4 and
5, without looking into the recitals of the certificate of
grant, have proceeded to pass the impugned orders.
Hence, the impugned orders passed by respondent
Nos.4 and 5, are required to be quashed.
11. In view of the above discussion, I proceed
to pass the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is allowed.
The impugned orders are hereby
quashed and set aside.
SD/-
JUDGE
RD
