Shri. C. Ramakrishnappa vs Shri. P. S. Venkateshaiah
2022 Latest Caselaw 8263 Kant

                             1


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                        BEFORE

        THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

        WRIT PETITION No.21702/2018 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:
SHRI. C.RAMAKRISHNAPPA
S/O SHRI VENKATAPPA,
AGE 55 YEARS,
R/AT ALIPURA VILLAGE,
TONDEBHAVI HOBLI-561213
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK,
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT.                     ...PETITIONER

     (BY KUM.AKSHATHA.R, ADV. FOR SRI.G.S.BHAT, ADV.)


AND:
1.   SHRI. P. S. VENKATESHAIAH
     S/O SHRI SATHYAPPA,
     AGE 62 YEARS,
     R/AT PULAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
     TONDEBHAVI HOBLI-561213
     GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK,
     CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT.

2.   THE COMMISSION
     KARNATAKA STATE SCHEDULE CASTE
     AND SCHEDULE TRIBE,
     NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR,
     CFC BUILDING,
     NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
     BANGALORE-560001
     REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY
                                           ...RESPONDENTS
            (BY SRI.S.M.KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R-1;
               SRI.C.JAGADISH, ADV. FOR R-2.)
                              2


      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN CASE NO.JAMEENU/23/2018 FROM
R-2; AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 5.4.2018 AND ALL
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CASE NO. JAMEENU / 23/2018
PENDING BEFORE THE R-2 VIDE ANNEX-A.

       THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

                       ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court under Articles

226 and 227 of Constitution of India praying for a writ

of certiorari to quash the order dated 05.04.2018 and

all further proceedings in Case No.JAMEENU/23/2018

pending before the second respondent [Annexure-A].

2. Heard the learned counsel Kum.Akshatha.R

for learned counsel Sri.G.S.Bhat for the petitioner,

learned counsel Sri.S.M.Kulkarni for respondent No.1

and learned counsel Sri.C.Jagadish for respondent

No.2. Perused the writ petition papers.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that petitioner is the owner in possession of land

in Sy.90, new Sy.No.173, measuring 2 acres situated at

Alipura Village, Thondebhavi Hobli, Gowribidanur Taluk

by virtue of grant in favour of father of the petitioner

Sri.Venkatappa. The respondent No.1 claims that he is

also granted land in Sy.90, New Sy.No.173 to an extent

of 2 acres. The respondent No.1 filed a suit for

declaration and permanent injunction against the

petitioner herein in O.S.No.50/1995 before the Principal

Civil Judge and JMFFC, Gowribidanur. The said suit

came to be dismissed by the judgment and decree dated

02.08.2010, against which respondent No.1 filed

R.A.No.191/2013 before the Senior Civil Judge at

Gowribidanur. The Court of Senior Civil Judge at

Gowribidanur by its judgment dated 11.09.2015

dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and

decree dated 02.08.2010 in O.S.No.50/1995. Against

which respondent No.1 is before this Court in

R.S.A.No.12/2016 which is pending consideration. In

the meanwhile, the first respondent approached the

second respondent by filing complaint dated 13.10.2015

praying for a recommendation to cancel the land

granted to him and to make a fresh grant wherein the

first respondent made the petitioner as fourth

respondent. Challenging the proceedings on the

complaint of respondent No.1, notice was issued to the

petitioner and petitioner appeared before the

Commission on 05.04.2018. Subsequently, the

petitioner is before this Court challenging the initiation

of proceedings before the second respondent-

Commission.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

contend that second respondent-Commission has no

jurisdiction either to grant or cancel the land and as

such no complaint would be maintainable before the

second respondent-Commission. Learned counsel would

invite attention of this Court to Section 8 of the

Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002 [for short the Act] and the

Rules made therein i.e., Karnataka State Commission

for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Rules,

2012 [for short the Rules] and submits that the

Commission has no jurisdiction to decide lis between

the parties particularly when both the petitioner as well

as respondent No.1 belongs to Scheduled Caste

Community. Moreover, learned counsel would submit

that the dispute with regard to entitlement of petitioner

as well as respondent No.1 is pending consideration

before this court in RSA No.12/2016. Thus, she prays

for allowing the writ petition setting aside the

proceedings before the second respondent-Commission.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1

would submit that complaint filed by the first

respondent before the second respondent-Commission

is maintainable since the first respondent has prayed

before the Commission to cancel the land granted to

him and to recommend for fresh grant. Further, learned

counsel would submit that taking note of the fact that

respondent No.1 belongs to Scheduled Caste category,

the Commission could recommend grant of land to the

respondent No.1.

      6.     On         the    other       hand,        learned   counsel

Sri.C.Jagadish          for    second       respondent-Commission

would contend that complaint of the first respondent

would not be maintainable before the second

respondent-Commission since both the petitioner as

well as respondent No.1 belong to scheduled caste

category. Moreover, he submits that the Commission

can look into the grievances of the Scheduled

Caste/Scheduled Tribe persons in terms of Section 8 of

the Act as well as could conduct enquiry in terms of

Rule 10 of the Rules. Thus, he prays for passing of

appropriate orders.

7. The second respondent-Commission is

established or constituted under Section 3 of the Act.

Section 8 of the Act enumerates the functions of the

Commission which reads as follows:

"8. Functions of the Commission.- The functions of the commission shall be as follows,-

(a) to investigate and examine the working of various safeguards provided in the constitution of India or under any other law for the time being in force or under any order of the Government for the welfare and protection of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes of Karnataka and;

(b) to inquire into specific complaints with respect to the deprivation of rights and safeguard of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes of Karnataka and to take up such matter with the appropriate authorities;

(c) to participate and advise on the planning process of socio economic development of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and to evaluate the progress of their development in the State.

(d) to make recommendations as to the measures that should be taken by the State for the effective implementation of safeguards and other measures for the protection, welfare and socio economic development of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and to make report to the

State Government annually and at such other time as the Commission may deems fit.

(e) to discharge such other functions in relation to the protection, welfare, development and advancement of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as may be prescribed:

Provided that if any matter specified in this section is dealt with by the National commission for Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes established under Article 338 of the Constitution of India the State Commission for Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall cease to have jurisdiction on such matter."

8. Section 10 of the Act prescribes the powers

of Commission. The Commission is conferred with the

powers of a Civil Court in trying a suit in respect of

Clause 10[a] to [f] therein. The said power is relatable to

Commission's function under Section 8[a] to [e] of the

Act. The Commission is conferred with power to

investigate and examine the working of various

safeguards provided under the Constitution of India or

under any other law for the welfare and protection of

the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes of

Karnataka. Further, the Commission could also inquire

into specific complaints with respect to the deprivation

of rights and safeguards of the Scheduled Castes and

the Scheduled Tribes of Karnataka and to take up such

matter with the appropriate authorities. The complaint

of the petitioner would not fall under any of the

functions enumerated under Section 8[a] to [e] of the

Act. Rule 10 of the Rules empowers investigation and

enquiry by the Commission. The Commission may

hold sittings for investigation in to matters relating to

safeguards, protection, welfare and development of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The subject

matter of complaint by the first respondent before the

Commission is not relating to safeguards, protection,

welfare and development of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes. It is an individual dispute between

the petitioner and the first respondent. No adversarial

proceedings would be maintainable before the

Commission. Moreover, both the petitioner and

respondent No.1 belongs to Schedule Caste category.

Further, the Commission is not conferred with the

power to decide the lis or dispute between two

individuals.

9. Admittedly, the respondent No.1 had filed a

suit against the petitioner for declaration and

permanent injunction in O.S.No.50/1995 and the said

suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated

02.08.2010 by the Civil Judge and JMFC at

Gowribidanur, against which the respondent No.1

unsuccesfully filed R.A.No.191/2013. The respondent

No.1 is before this Court in R.S.A.No.12/2016

challenging both the judgment and decree in

O.S.No.50/1995 as well as R.A.No.191/2013 which

relates to dispute between the petitioner and respondent

No.1 with regard to land in Sy.No.90, new Sy.No.173, to

an extent of 2 acres situated at Alipura Village,

Thondebhavi Hobli, Gowribidanur Taluk. When the

dispute between petitioner and first respondent was

pending consideration before this Court and this Court

is seized of the matter, the Commission at any rate

could not have entertained the complaint filed by the

first respondent.

10. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the

proceedings initiated by the second respondent-

Commission on the complaint of respondent No.1 in

case No.JAMEENU/23/2018 is set aside. The first

respondent is at liberty to make appropriate application

for grant of land in accordance with law, before the

appropriate Authority.

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NC.