Karnataka High Court
Smt D C Nagarathna vs State Of Karnataka on 29 October, 2022
Bench: Ashok S.Kinagi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.18962 OF 2021 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
SMT. D C NAGARATHNA
D/O LATE N CHICKKMUNISHAMAPPA,
W/O H.K. ESWARAIAH @H.K. VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RESIDING AT B.B ROAD,
OPP. RAMAKRISHNA LODGE, WARD NO 19,
DEVANAHALLI TOWN, DEVANAHALLI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. N.R. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
BANGALORE - 560001.
3. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER
DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION
BANGALORE-560001.
W.P.No.18962/2021
2
4. SRI.D.M. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O LATE DOODA MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
5. SRI.D. MUNIYAPPA
S/O LATE DOODA MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
RESPONDENT No.4 AND 5 ARE RESIDING AT
MANJUNATH WOOD WORKS,
B.B. ROAD, WARD NO.19,
DEVANAHALLI TOWN,
DEVANAHALLI - 562 101.
6. SRI RAMAVATHAR GUPTA
S/O ALTE SARJU PRASAD GUPTA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.4, 1ST FLOOR,
TRIBUVAN ROAD,
MUMBAI-4000 004.
7. SRI N MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
NO.W3, SAI GOVINDA BUIDLING,
NEW SHANTHI SAGAR,
SULIBELE ROAD,
DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562 101.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.K. KUMBAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R7
SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR M.B., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE R-2
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT IN
NO.LND.SC.ST(a)14/2013-14 DTD.23.7.2019 PRODUCED
W.P.No.18962/2021
3
AT ANENURE-A1 BY CONFORMING THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE R-3 IN NO.PTCL-SR(DE)-42/2011-12 DTD.19.8.2013
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated
23.07.2019, passed by respondent No.2, vide
Annexure-A1, confirming the order dated 19.08.2013,
passed by respondent No.3, vide Annexure-A, has
filed this writ petition.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition
are as under:
Land measuring 5 acres 38 guntas in
Sy.No.162/1 of Gokare Village, was granted in favour
of Sri. Chikkamunishamappa i.e., father of petitioner,
on 15.09.1940. Father of the petitioner sold a portion
of the said land i.e., an extent of 3 acres 38 guntas in
favour of Smt. Munigangamma on 29.11.1967. After
W.P.No.18962/2021
the demise of said Munigangamma, her children sold
the said land in favour of one Ram Avathar Guptha on
28.07.1995. The said Ram Avathar Guptha in turn
sold the said property in favour of Sri. N. Muniraju on
06.04.2006. The petitioner filed a petition under
Section 5 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain lands) Act
1978 (for short 'the PTCL Act') before the respondent
No.3 on 24.04.2006, for restitution of land in favour of
the petitioner. Respondent No.3, vide order dated
28.01.2008, allowed the application filed by the
petitioner and directed to restore the land in question
in favour of the petitioner. Ram Avathar Guptha,
aggrieved by the said order passed by respondent
No.3, preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 in
PTCL SR (Dev) 21/2006-07. Respondent No.2, vide
order dated 13.09.2011, allowed the appeal and set
aside the order dated 28.01.2008, passed by
W.P.No.18962/2021
respondent No.3 and remitted the matter to
respondent No.3. After remand, respondent No.3
dismissed the application filed by the petitioner vide
order dated 19.08.2013. The petitioner aggrieved by
the said order passed by respondent No.3, preferred
an appeal before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2,
after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal vide
order dated 23.07.2019. Hence this petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and
learned HCGP for respondents No.1 to 3 and learned
counsel for the respondents No.4 to 7.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the land in question is a granted land. The said
aspect was not considered by respondents 2 and 3
while passing the impugned orders. He further
submits that respondents 2 and 3 have made an
observation that the said land was purchased in
W.P.No.18962/2021
auction. If the said observation is accepted, then the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS. STATE OF
KARNATAKA & ANR. reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232, is
not applicable to the present case in hand. He further
submits that the sale is of the year 2006 and the
application is filed in the year 2008, which was well
within time. He further submits that the order dated
28.01.2008 has attained finality and the vendor of
respondent No.6 has not challenged the order dated
28.01.2008, passed by respondent No.3. He further
submits that the impugned order passed by
respondents 2 and 3 are contrary to the provisions of
the PTCL Act. Hence on these grounds, prays to allow
the writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents
No.4 to 7 submits that the land in question was
purchased in an auction in the year 1940 and saguvali
W.P.No.18962/2021
chit was issued on 14.09.2040. He submits that the
said land is not a granted land. Hence the provisions
of the PTCL Act is not applicable. He submits that
respondents 2 and 3 were justified in passing the
impugned orders. He further submits that the order
dated 28.01.2008, passed by respondent No.3 was
challenged before respondent No.2, by respondent
No.6 who was a subsequent purchaser. Respondent
No.2 vide order dated 13.09.2011, has set aside the
order dated 28.01.2008, passed by respondent No.2.
Hence, he submits that the argument advanced by the
learned counsel for petitioner that the order dated
28.01.2008 has attained finality, does not hold good.
He further submits that the orders passed by
respondents 2 and 3 are just and proper and does not
call for any interference. He further submits that
though the first sale had taken place in the year 1967,
the application was filed in the year 2008 and thus
W.P.No.18962/2021
there is an inordinate delay in filing the application
under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. Further, in order to
buttress his argument, he has placed reliance on the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI (SUPRA). 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. It is the case of the petitioner that the land in
question was granted in favour of
Chikkamunishamappa i.e., father of petitioner.
Petitioner has produced xerox copy of saguvali chit
and mutation extract. Except these documents, no
other documents relating to the grant of land in
question, is produced by the petitioner. The
Tahsildar, Devanahalli has reported that the land
W.P.No.18962/2021
grant records bearing No.AD.53/40-41 and 53/39-40
in respect of land in Sy.No.162/1 measuring 3 acres
38 guntas situated at Gokare Village are not available
and has furnished the extract of original Darkhast
Register. Perusal of the same discloses that
Chikkamuniswamy has acquired the land in question
in a public auction conducted by the Government and
further the entries in the Grant Certificate/Form No.1
dated 15.09.1940 clearly indicates that the land in
question is assigned to Sri. Chikkamuniswamy by
purchase in public auction. From the perusal of the
register of Darkhast, it cannot be construed as a
granted land. Section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act defines
a 'granted land' as under:
" 'Granted Land' means any land
granted by the Government to a person
belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or
the Scheduled Tribes and includes land
allotted or granted to such person under the
W.P.No.18962/2021
relevant law for the time being in force
relating to agrarian reforms or land ceilings
or abolition of inams, other than that
relating to hereditary offices or rights and
the word 'granted' shall be construed
accordingly."
9. Perusal of the definition of 'granted land'
makes it clear that the land should be granted by the
Government and such land is to be granted to a
person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe. Once the land is held to be a granted land, the
restriction contained in Section 4 of the PTCL Act
would apply, meaning thereby such land should be
granted by Government.
10. Admittedly in the instant case, the said land
in question is not a granted land and is purchased in a
public auction. The said land will not fall within the
definition of 'granted land'. Hence the provisions of
W.P.No.18962/2021
the PTCL Act are not applicable to the present case on
hand.
11. Further, learned counsel for petitioner
submits that the sale is of the year 2006 and the
application was filed in the year 2008. He submits
that respondents 2 and 3 have committed an error in
applying the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI (SUPRA).
12. As observed above, the said land is not a
granted land and hence the provisions of the PTCL Act
are not applicable. Further, the first sale took place
on 29.11.1967 and petitioner has filed the application
under Section 5 of the PTCL Act on 24.04.2006.
Respondent No.2, relying on the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court & this Court, has held that there is
an inordinate delay in filing the application under
Section 5 of the PTCL Act and observed that the said
W.P.No.18962/2021
land is not a granted land and hence the provisions of
the PTCL Act are not applicable to the land in
question. Respondent No.2 was justified in recording
a finding that the said land is a purchased land and
does not fall within the purview of 'granted land'.
Hence the question of filing an application under
Section 5 of the PTCL Act would not arise.
Respondents No.2 and 3 are justified in passing the
impugned orders. Hence, I do not find any grounds to
interfere with the impugned orders. Accordingly, the
writ petition is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE
RD
