Karnataka High Court

Wahed Ali vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 15 December, 2023

Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur

Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur

                                             -1-
                                                     NC: 2023:KHC-K:9251
                                                       WP No. 203383 of 2023




                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                     KALABURAGI BENCH

                         DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

                                           BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR


                          WRIT PETITION NO. 203383 OF 2023 (SCST)
                   BETWEEN:

                   SHRI WAHED ALI S/O MASTAN SAB,
                   AGED MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE
                   R/O YAMPALLI VILLAGE,
                   TALUK CHINCHOLI,
                   DISTRICT KALABURAGI.
                                                                ...PETITIONER

                   (BY SRI. GANESH NAIK, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                        REPRESENTED BY THE
Digitally signed        DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
by SACHIN               KALABURAGI, VIDHAN SOUDHA,
Location: HIGH          KALABURAGI-585101.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
                   2.   THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
                        MAIN ROAD, SEDAM,
                        DISTRICT: KALABURAGI-585222.

                   3.   THE TAHSILDAR, CHINCHOLI,
                        DISTRICT: KALABURAGI-585201.

                   4.   SRI. SANTOSHKUMAR
                        S/O KASHINATH PATIL,
                        AGE : MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                        R/O SHIKAR MOTAKPALLI,
                        TALUK CHINCHOLI,
                           -2-
                                NC: 2023:KHC-K:9251
                                   WP No. 203383 of 2023




     DISTRICT KALABURAGI-585201.

5.   SMT. MAHADEVI W/O SHARANAPPA,
     AGE MAJOR, OCC: COOLIE,
     R/O YAMPALLI VILLAGE,
     TALUK CHINCHOLI,
     DISTRICT KALABURAGI-585201.

6.   SMT. YANKAMMA W/O RAYAPPA,
     AGE MAJOR, OCC: COOLIE,
     R/O YAMPALLI VILLAGE,
     TALUK CHINCHOLI,
     DISTRICT KALABURAGI-585201.

7.   SMT. SUSHEELAMMA
     W/O BAKKAPPA
     AGE MAJOR, OCC: COOLIE,
     R/O YAMPALLI VILLAGE,
     TALUK CHINCHOLI,
     DISTRICT KALABURAGI-585201.

8.   SMT. LAXMI W/O GANGAPPA,
     AGE MAJOR, OCC: COOLIE,
     R/O YAMPALLI VILLAGE,
     TALUK CHINCHOLI,
     DISTRICT KALABURAGI-585201.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G. B. YADAVA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
VIDE ORDER DATED 15/12/2023 NOTICE TO R4 TO R8 ARE
DISPENSED WITH)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
ANY APPROPRIATE ORDER OR DIRECTION OR A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
4TH MARCH 2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN PTCL
APPEAL/01/2018-19, DISMISSING THE APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF
THE 4TH RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ORDER OF THE
RESPONDENT       NO.2     DATED     15.10.2018     IN
NO./KO/PRCL/03/2016-17 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.
                              -3-
                                   NC: 2023:KHC-K:9251
                                     WP No. 203383 of 2023




     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned

High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice

for respondent nos.1 to 3/State. Notice to respondent

nos.4 to 8 is dispensed as no relief is sought against them

and this Court is not inclined to accept the petition. Hence,

notice to said respondents is dispensed.

2. Brief facts of the case :-

Respondent nos.5 to 8 approached Dr.B.R.Ambedkar

Development Corporation, Kalaburagi District (for short,

the 'Corporation') requesting to purchase the land under

the scheme of purchase of land for landless Schedule

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) and accordingly the

land was granted in favour of respondent nos.5 to 8.

Thereafter, respondent nos.5 to 8 have sold the land

granted to them under the said scheme in favour of

respondent no.4.

NC: 2023:KHC-K:9251

3. It is the case of petitioner that there is

misrepresentation and false statement made by the

respondent nos.5 to 8 and also respondent no.4 and

therefore, there is a violation of the provisions of the

Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for

short, 'PTCL Act). Petitioner approached the Tahsildar by

making a complaint and representation with regard to the

illegalities committed by respondent nos.4 to 8.

Respondent no.3-Tahsildar dismissed the application and

did not interfere with the mutation entries made in favour

of respondent No.4. The said order came to be challenged

before respondent no.2-Assistant Commissioner, who also

dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the

petitioner approached respondent no.1 - Deputy

Commissioner, who also did not interfere with the order

passed by respondent no.2-Assistant Commissioner.

Aggrieved by the orders of the respondents, petitioner is

before this Court.

NC: 2023:KHC-K:9251

4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the

respondent no.5 to 8, who are the beneficiaries by virtue

of the scheme floated by Corporation for the welfare and

the benefit of the landless persons belonging to the

depressed class i.e., SC/ST have violated the terms and

conditions of the grant order and have sold the property in

favour of respondent no.4 by making false representation/

misrepresentation and respondent no.4 in collusion with

respondent nos.5 to 8 has played fraud on the

Corporation, which is a agency of the State. Hence,

petitioner being a diligent villager has approached the

Tahsildar, bringing to the notice such illegalities and fraud

committed by respondent nos.4 to 8 and he seeks that the

impugned orders passed by respondent nos.1 to 3 to be

quashed and suitable action to be taken as the purpose

and object of this scheme for granting of land in favour of

the landless and depressed class community is flouted

with impunity.

NC: 2023:KHC-K:9251

5. Learned High Court Government Pleader on

behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3/State vehemently

contends that there is absolutely no illegality or perversity

in the orders passed by respondent nos.1 to 3 and the

orders do not call for interference at the hands of this

Court, as the petitioner is a stranger and is not an affected

party.

6. This Court does not find the requirement of

issuance of notice to respondent nos.4 to 8 as it is not

inclined to accept the petition.

7. The moot point for consideration before this

Court is whether the petitioner, who has filed this petition

and representation before the statutory authority is

affected by the grant of land made by the Corporation in

favour of respondent nos.5 to 8 or the selling of land in

favour of respondent no.4 by respondent nos.5 to 8.

Primarily the petitioner will have to prove and establish

before this Court as to how he is aggrieved and what is his

locus is before making any complaint or challenge to the

NC: 2023:KHC-K:9251

allotment or grant of land in favour of persons so allotted,

who are beneficiaries of the said scheme.

8. It is settled legal proposition of law that a

stranger cannot be permitted to agitate or vent of his

grievance against the authorities on the sale of land,

unless he is directly affected or aggrieved by the said

grant of land or action of the authorities either in selling of

land or any such scheme floated or order passed by the

authority.

9. It is a fundamental rule of law that when a

person approaches the authority or the Court, he has to

prima facie show how what is the locus for him to file such

an application before the authorities and how he is

affected by the orders, so made by the authority and the

Court.

10. Primarily there has to be legal injury and that is

how the petitioner will be an aggrieved person and an

affected party. Without these basic fundamental aspects,

the petitioner who is a stranger and is not affected by any

NC: 2023:KHC-K:9251

such orders or such grant of land cannot claim to be an

affected party or an aggrieved party. Therefore, unless he

proves these fundamental requirements, he would fall

outside the ambit of affected and aggrieved party or the

party, who has suffered any legal injury. Under these

circumstances, the petitioner would not have any legal

right or locus to challenge the said orders of grant of land

made in favor of the beneficiaries'-respondent nos.5 to 8

and the selling of their lands by the said respondents in

favour of respondent no.4.

11. In view of the above discussions, I do not find

any reason and also no material is placed before the Court

by the petitioner to show how he is an effected party, how

is aggrieved party and what is the legal injury caused to

him. Therefore, in my humble opinion, the petitioner does

not have locus to question the grant of land made by the

Corporation in favour of respondent nos.5 to 8 and sale of

land made by respondent nos.5 to 8 in favour of

respondent no.4.

NC: 2023:KHC-K:9251

12. This way has been fortified by the judgment of

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ayaaubkhan

Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra and

others1, wherein at paragraphs 9, 10 and 18, it is held as

under :

"9. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the authority/court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the Authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of

(2013) 4 SCC 465

- 10 -

NC: 2023:KHC-K:9251

such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. In fact, the existence of such right is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. (Vide : State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta2, Saghir Ahmad & Anr. v. State of U.P.3, Calcutta Gas Co. (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of W.B.4, Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P.5, and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Assn. (2) v. S.C. Sekar6 (2009) 2 SCC 784).

10. A "legal right", means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression, "person aggrieved" does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must therefore, necessarily be one whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised. (Vide: Shanti Kumar R. Chanji v. Home

AIR 1952 SC 12

AIR 1954 SC 728

AIR 1962 SC 1044

AIR 1996 SC 2736

(2009) 2 SCC 784

- 11 -

NC: 2023:KHC-K:9251

Insurance Co. of New York7, and State of Rajasthan v. Union of India8).

xxx xxx xxx

18. As Respondent 5 does not belong to the Scheduled Tribes category, the garb adopted by him, of serving the cause of Scheduled Tribes candidates who might have been deprived of their legitimate right to be considered for the post, must be considered by this Court in order to determine whether Respondent 5, is in fact, in a legitimate position to lay any claim before any forum, whatsoever."

13. Under the circumstances, I do not find any

merit in this petition. Hence, I pass the following :