Karnataka High Court
Sri B Shivalingaiah vs Smt Nanjamma on 19 September, 2022
Bench: Acting Chief Justice, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A. NO.339 OF 2022 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
SRI. B. SHIVALINGAIAH
S/O LATE BORAIAH
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/AT. THORESTTAHALLI VILLAGE
MADDUR TALUK , MANDYA DISTRICT. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI SWAMY N.B.N, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SMT. NANJAMMA
W/O LATE RAJU
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS.
2. SRI SHIVALINGAIAH
S/O LATE RAJU
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
3. SRI. PRAKASH
S/O LATE RAJU
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT.
THORESTTAHALLI VILLAGE
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT.
2
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDINGS
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANDYA DISTRICT
MANDYA - 571 401.
6. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MANDYA SUB DIVISION
MANDYA - 571 401. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI Y.K. NARAYANA SHARMA, ADV., FOR R-1 TO R-3
SRI S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R-4 TO R-6)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
ON 25/02/2022 IN WP NO.12748/2011 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTIALLY RESTORE THE ORDERS PASSED
ON 28/09/2010 ANNEXURE-E OF WP BY THE RESPONDENT NO.5,
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA AS WELL
AS THE ORDER PASSED ON ORDER ON 20/03/2009 IN
PTCL.NO.1/2002-03 ANNEXURE-D OF WP BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.6, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MANDYA SUB-DIVISION,
MANDYA AND PASS SUCH FURTHER ORDER OR ORDERS.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal has been filed challenging the
order dated 25.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge
of this Court in W.P.No.12748/2011.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also
perused the material on record.
3. Facts leading to filing of this appeal are, land bearing
Sy. No.21 measuring 1 acre 5 guntas was granted on
temporary lease in favour of the father of the appellant herein
under the Grow More Food Scheme on 18.02.1946 and a
temporary saguvali chit was issued to him. On 30.07.1966,
35 guntas of land in Sy. No.21 was sold by the appellant's
father and the remaining 10 guntas of land was sold by him
under a registered sale deed dated 10.10.1967. In the year
1981, an application was filed by the appellant herein under
Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978
(for short, 'PTCL Act'), for resumption of the lands which were
sold under the sale deeds dated 30.07.1966 and 10.10.1967.
The said application was allowed by the Assistant
Commissioner and confirmed in appeal by the Deputy
Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent nos.1
to 3 herein had filed W.P.No.23280/1991 which was
remanded by this Court for fresh disposal. On remand, the
Assistant Commissioner dismissed the application filed by the
appellant under Section 5 of the PTCL Act and as against the
said order, an appeal was filed by the appellant before the
Deputy Commissioner who allowed the said appeal on
21.06.2002 and remanded the matter to the Assistant
Commissioner for fresh disposal. The Assistant Commissioner,
thereafter, passed the order dated 20.03.2009 allowing the
application filed by the appellant herein under Section 5 of
the PTCL Act and the said order was challenged in appeal
before the Deputy Commissioner by respondent nos.1 to 3
herein who had confirmed the said order and as against the
same, W.P.No.12748/2011 was filed by respondent nos.1 to 3
herein which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide
the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the same, the
appellant who was respondent no.4 in the writ petition has
preferred this intra court appeal.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the
land in question was granted to the father of the appellant
who undisputedly belongs to Scheduled Caste, and therefore,
the learned Single Judge was not justified in allowing the writ
petition. He submits that the learned Single Judge has failed
to consider that the principles laid down in the judgment in
the case of PEDDA REDDY VS STATE OF KARNATAKA1 had not
been considered by the authorities, and therefore, he ought
to have remanded the matter for consideration of the
application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act in view of the law
laid down by this Court in Pedda Reddy's case supra.
5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents have
argued in support of the impugned order and have prayed to
dismiss the appeal.
6. The material on record would go to show that the
land in question was granted to the appellant's father under
the Grow More Food Scheme on 18.02.1946 and only a
temporary saguvali chit was therefore issued to him. For the
purpose of attracting the provisions of the PTCL Act, the land
in question is required to be a 'granted land' within the
meaning of Section 2(b) of the PTCL Act.
7. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of
MUNIRAJU & ORS VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS in
ILR 1993 KAR 551
W.A.Nos.4121-4134/2013 disposed of on 18.03.2015, has
observed 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."
8. Applying the principles laid down in the said
judgment, a similar view has been taken by this Court in the
case of V.N.BABU REDDY & ANOTHER VS SMT. VENKATAMMA
& OTHERS in W.P.No.37475/2011 and connected matters
disposed of on 08.12.2017.
9. The learned Single Judge placing reliance on the
aforesaid two judgments has held that since the land in
question is not a granted land within the meaning of Section
2(b) of the PTCL Act, the orders passed by the Assistant
Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner are
contrary to the law laid down in Muniraju's case and V.N.Babu
Reddy's case supra, and accordingly has allowed the writ
petition.
10. We find no illegality or irregularity in the said order
and the same does not call for interference by this Court.
Accordingly, we decline to entertain this writ appeal and the
same is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KK
