Nanjamma vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 3315 Kant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                      BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

   WRIT PETITION NO.12748 OF 2011 (SC-ST)

BETWEEN:

1 . NANJAMMA
    W/O LATE RAJU
    AGED 65 YEARS

2 . SHIVALINGAIAH
    S/O LATE RAJU
    AGED 44 YEARS

3 . PRAKASH
    S/O LATE RAJU
    AGED 37 YEARS

   ALL ARE R/AT THORESETTAHALLI,
   MADDUR TALUK,
   MANDYA DISTRICT.
                                    ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. G. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
    SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
    REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDINGS,
                          2




   DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
   BANGALORE 560 001.

2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
    MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA.

3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
    MANDYA SUB DIVISION, MANDYA.

4 . B SHIVALINGAIAH
    S/O BORAIAH
    AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
    THORESETTAHALLI VILLAGE
    MADDUR TALUK,
    MANDYA DISTRICT
                                    ....RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. M. SANDESH KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3
     SRI. N.B.N. SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.03.2009 PASSED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN DISPUTE NO. PTCL 1/2002-03
AS PER ANNEX. D AND THE ORDER DATED 28.09.2010
PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN DISPUTE NO. PTCL
08/2009 AS PER ANNEX. E AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO
DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT FOR RESTORATION OF THE LANDS IN
QUESTION; QUASH THE EVICTION NOTICE DATED
30.11.2010 PASSED IN DISPUTE NO.PTCL 1/2-03 ISSUED
UNDER SECTION 39(1) OF THE KARNATAKA LAND
REVENUE ACT, 1964 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS PER
ANNEX.H.

     THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 06.12.2021, COMING ON FOR
                                3




PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

The petitioners aggrieved by the order dated

20.03.2009, passed by the respondent No.3 in Dispute

No.PTCL 1/2002-03, as per Annexure-D and order

dated 28.09.2010, passed by the respondent No.2 in

Dispute No.PTCL 8/2009, as per Annexure-E, have

filed this writ petition.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ

petition are as under:

Land in Sy.No.21 measuring 1 acre 5 guntas was

granted on temporary lease in favour of father of

respondent No.4 under the "Grow More Foods

Scheme" on 18.02.1946 and temporary 'saguvali chit'

was issued. The father of respondent No.4 was

continuously in possession of the land till it was

granted at upset price of Rs.200/- per acre. The

Deputy Commissioner exercising powers under Rule

43-J of the Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules,

1960 ('the Rules' for short) granted the said land. In

the said grant order, no conditions are imposed

regarding non-alienation of granted land. The

respondent No.4 filed a petition under Section 5 of the

PTCL Act alleging that the sale transactions are in

violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act. Therefore,

respondent No.3 allowed the application filed by

respondent No.4 and declared that the sale

transactions were hit by the provisions of the PTCL Act

and issued a direction to the Tahsildar, Maddur to

restore the land in question in favour of respondent

No.4. The petitioners aggrieved by the order passed

by respondent No.3, filed an appeal before respondent

No.2. The respondent No.2 dismissed the appeal filed

by the petitioners vide order dated 28.09.2010.

Hence this writ petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and

learned counsel for respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that the impugned orders passed by respondents No.2

and 3 suffers from material irregularity. He further

submits that Rule 43-J of the Rules is not applicable to

the present case in hand. He further submits that the

respondents No.2 and 3 without looking into the

records, have passed the impugned order. It is

further submitted that the land in question was got

regularized by the father of respondent No.4 during

undisputed time. He further submits that the

respondents No.2 and 3 have failed to note that grant

was made under the provisions of Rule 43-J of the

Rules and for the grants made under the said Rule,

the provisions of the PTCL Act are not applicable. He

further submits that the father of the respondent No.4

has deposited the upset price of the value of the land

and for such grants, condition for non-alienation could

not have been prescribed. Hence, the condition of

non-alienation for a period of 15 years from the date

of grant has to be ignored. In order to buttress his

arguments, he has placed reliance on the decision of

the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of V.

N. BABUREDDY & ANR. VS. SMT. VENKATAMMA & ORS.,

in W.P.No.37475/2011 & Connected Matters, disposed

of on 08.12.2017. He further submits that the father

of respondent No.4 has filed a written statement in

O.S.No.466/1957. In the said written statement, the

father of respondent No.4 has clearly admitted that he

has credited the required amount and has prayed for

confirmation of the grant. He further submits that the

land was not a granted land, but in fact it was

purchased by the father of respondent No.4. He

submits that respondents No.2 and 3 without

considering the said aspect, have proceeded to pass

the impugned orders. Hence on these grounds, he

prays to allow the writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the

respondents submits that the grant was regularized

and it is not a granted land for upset price. He further

submits that the provisions of the PTCL Act are

applicable to the present case in hand. He further

submits that respondent No.4 is in possession of the

property and the Civil Court has recorded a finding to

that effect. He further submits that the submission of

learned counsel for petitioners that Rule 43-J of the

Rules does not apply to the PTCL Act, is not correct.

He further submits that respondents No.2 and 3, on

considering the materials on record, are justified in

passing the impugned orders. In order to buttress his

argument, he has placed reliance on the judgment of

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of GUNTAIAH &

ORS. VS. HAMBAMMA & ORS., reported in (2005) 6 SCC

228. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss

the writ petition.

6. Perused the records and considered the

submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7. It is the case of respondent No.4 that land in

question was granted under "Grow more food" scheme

and a temporary 'saguvali chit' was issued on

18.02.1946. The father of respondent No.4 sold

portion of land in favour of husband of petitioner No.1

and father of petitioners No.2 and 3 under registered

sale deed dated 30.07.1966 and the remaining portion

to an extent of 10 guntas under registered sale deed

dated 10.10.1967. On the strength of the registered

sale deeds, the husband of the petitioner No.1 and

father of petitioners No.2 and 3 came in possession of

the property in question. After his demise, the

petitioners are in possession of the land in question.

The respondent No.4 has initiated proceedings under

the PTCL Act alleging that the sale transactions are hit

by the provisions of the PTCL Act and sought for

declaration that the registered sale deeds executed in

favour of husband of petitioner No.1 and father of

petitioners No.2 and 3 are null and void and to restore

the possession in favour of respondent No.4. On the

earlier occasion, the respondent No.3 has dropped the

proceedings in Dispute No. PTCL 33/1995-96 on the

ground that since the land was regularized, the

provisions of the PTCL Act was not applicable.

Respondent No.4 preferred an appeal before

respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 allowed the

appeal filed by respondent No.4 and remitted the

matter to the respondent No.3 for fresh consideration.

After remand, respondent No.3 has allowed the

petition filed by respondent No.4. The petitioner

aggrieved by the same, has filed the appeal before

respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 dismissed the

appeal.

8. What is required to be considered in this writ

petition is, whether the provisions of the PTCL Act

would attract to the grants made under "Grow More

Foods Scheme". As discussed above, land was

granted in favour of father of respondent No.4 under

"Grow More Foods Scheme" in the year 1946 and the

said land was granted under the upset price being

fixed at Rs.200/- per acre by the Deputy

Commissioner in the year 1961. The father of

respondent No.4 paid upset price and secured the title

to the said property in his name, which document is

relied upon by him as a 'Grant Certificate' and

'Saguvali Chit'. As far as payment of upset price is

concerned, the father of respondent No.4 has

admitted the same in the written statement filed in

O.S.No.466/1957. The petitioners have produced

copy of judgment passed in the aforesaid suit, vide

Annexure-G. The Trial Court has recorded a finding

that, "According to the condition in Ex.D3, the grantee

is entitled to get the grant confirmed in his favour

after the expiry of the period of 5 years. The

defendant has credited the required amount and has

prayed for confirmation of the grant". From the

perusal of the judgment passed in the aforesaid suit,

it is clear that father of the respondent No.4 admitted

that he has credited the required amount and prayed

for confirmation of grant. The said fact has not been

denied by the respondent No.4. The finding recorded

by the Trial Court in the said judgment would clearly

indicate that, what is given to the father of respondent

No.4 is by way of conveyance and he was put in

possession and enjoyment of the same as the

absolute owner which is supported by the conditions

stipulated in the 'Grant Certificate'. The respondent

submits that the land is a granted land and provisions

of the PTCL Act are applicable. Further it is submitted

that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of GUNTAIAH

(SUPRA) held that grant of agricultural lands to the

member of SC and ST at a price lower than the

market price or free of cost, initially on a temporary

lease and later permanently under Rule 43-J with a

condition that the grantee shall not alienate the lands

to the third parties for a period of 15 years. If

alienation is made, any breach of conditions restricting

the third party purchaser cannot challenge such a

condition as void and such transfer would not convey

any right, title or interest to the purchaser by virtue of

Section 4 of the PTCL Act.

9. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the

case of V.N.BABU REDDY (SUPRA) has held as under:

"15. Before going in to aforesaid aspect what is required to be seen is the so called Grant

Certificates which are issued to original grantees in the year 1951 during the pendency of Grow More Food Scheme under aforesaid three notifications which were issued initially in the year 1942 i.e., 11.4.1942 followed by another notification dated 13.6.1942 and with the last of the notifications dated 10.8.1953. When said notifications are looked into, the manner in which the grant is made is clearly seen. As discussed supra, lands which are granted in favour of original grantees is the excess fallow land which could be put to cultivation by developing the same.

16. xxx

17. Therefore, in the instant cases to remove any ambiguity with reference to aforesaid position, this Court would rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court, which is referred to by the learned Senior Counsel Sri.S.K.V.Chalapathy in the matter of B.K.Muniraju -vs- State of Karnataka, reported in 2008(4) SCC 451, wherein at page 455 the Apex Court has held as under:

"18. The document in question which is filed as Annexure-P3, has been styled or titled as "certificate of grant". 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 the question of construction of a document is to be decided by finding out the intention of the executant, firstly, from a comprehensive reading of the terms of the document itself, and then, by looking into - to the extent permissible - the prevailing circumstances which persuaded the author of the document to execute it. With a view to ascertain the nature of a transaction, the document has to be read as a whole. A sentence or term used may not be determinative of the real nature of transaction. Reference in this regard can be made to the following cases (1) Vidhyadhar

-vs- Manikrao [(1999) 3 SCC 573], (2) Subbegowda -vs- Thimmegowda [(2004) 9 SCC 734] and (3) Bishwanath Prasad Singh -vs-

Rajendra Prasad [(2006) 4 SCC 432]. "

18. With this it is clearly seen that though Grant Certificates issued in favour of Kenchappa, A.K.Mada and Chikaida referred to said documents as Grant Certificates, infact they were deeds of conveyance in their favour to an extent of 2 acres each which they were holding absolutely as on the date of sale which has taken place on 7.10.1982, 29.10.1987 and subsequently, on 15.10.2003. In that view of the matter, lands in question not being granted lands, same being absolute property of the

grantees, who are vendors, no conditions could have been imposed by the Government and in the absence of any condition being imposed on the usage and enjoyment of said lands, non alienable period which is provided to all lands which are granted under lease subsequent to 1969 being 15 years from the date of grant would not apply to the lands in question as they are the lands of the grantees with absolute title from the day they have paid the upset price and got the documents of title registered in their name. Therefore, the findings of the authorities, namely Assistant Commissioner and Special Deputy Commissioner contrary to the aforesaid legal position in the proceedings before them, in holding that said lands are granted lands, are erroneous. "

10. From the perusal of the aforesaid judgment,

this Court held that if the land is granted under "Grow

More Foods Scheme" at an upset price, then the said

land will not fall within the definition of 'granted land'.

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has considered

the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

GUNTAIAH'S case (supra). The Division Bench of this

Court in the case of MUNIRAJU & ORS VS. STATE OF

KARNATAKA & ORS. in Writ Appeal No.4127-4134/2013

disposed of on 18.03.2015, held as under:

"WHEN the land is taken under 'Grow More Food Scheme', the lessee is not required to pay rent or lease for the first year and he was required to pay half of the assessment of the land for the subsequent years. In the circumstances, we are of the view that if the land was granted to Marappa on lease under 'Grow More Food Scheme' and thereafter it is confirmed to him, it cannot be considered as a land granted to him considering him as Scheduled Caste or a depressed person."

11. Applying the principles laid down by this

Court in the aforesaid decisions, the respondents No.2

and 3 have failed to consider the said aspect and

proceeded to pass the impugned orders holding that

the land granted in favour of father of respondent

No.4 at an upset price falls within the definition of

'granted land'. The impugned orders passed by the

respondents No.2 and 3 are arbitrary and contrary to

the law laid down by this Court in V.N.BABU REDDY

AND MUNIRAJU (SUPRA).

12. In view of the above discussion, I proceed

to pass the following:

Order The writ petition is allowed.

           The    impugned      orders    passed   by
       respondents No.2 and 3 are set aside.




                                          SD/-
                                         JUDGE



RD