Karnataka High Court
Smt D C Nagarathna vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 September, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:32861-DB
WA No. 155 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT APPEAL NO. 155 OF 2023 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
SMT. D C NAGARATHNA,
D/O LT N CHICKKUMISHAMAPPA,
W/O H K ESWARAIAH @ H K VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT B B ROAD, OPP RAMAKRISHNA LODGE,
WARD NO 19, DEVANAHALLI TOWN,
DEVANAHALLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAIK N R.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by SHARADA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
VANI B
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF VIDHANA SOUDHA,
KARNATAKA BENGALURU 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
BANGALORE 560 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
DODDABALLAURA SUB DIVISION,
BANGALORE 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:32861-DB
WA No. 155 of 2023
4. SRI. D M NARAYANASWAMY,
S/O LT DODDA MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
5. SRI. D MUNIYAPPA,
S/O LT DODDA MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
RESPONDENT No.4 AND 5 ARE
R/AT MANJUNATHA WOOD WORKS
BB ROAD, WARD NO 19,
DEVANAHALLI TOWN,
DEVANAHALLI 562 101.
6. SRI. RAMAVATHAR GUPTA,
S/O LT SARJU PRASAD GUPTA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT NO 4, 1ST FLOOR,
TRIBUVAN ROAD, MUMBAI 400 004.
7. N MUNIRAJU,
S/O LT NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
No. W3, SAI GOVINDA BUILDING,
NEW SHANTHI NAGAR, SULIBELE ROAD,
DEVANAHALLI TOWN 562 101..
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.NILOUFER AKBAR., AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI.V F KUMBAR., ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6;
SRI.ABHINAV R., ADVOCATE FOR R7)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WP No-18962/2021 DATED 29.10.2022
BY REJECTING THE WP AND ALLOW THE WP FILED BY THE
APPELLANT AND II) TO DECLARE THAT THE SALE
TRANSACTION MADE ON 04.04.2006 BETWEEN THE 6TH AND
7TH RESPONDENTS IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS
LIS-PENDENCY DOCUMENT AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:32861-DB
WA No. 155 of 2023
JUDGMENT
1. This intra Court appeal seeks to lay a challenge to the
learned Single Judge's order dated 29.10.2022 whereby,
petitioner's W.P.No.18962/2021 (SC/ST) has been
negatived with the net result that the subject land cannot
be restored to the grantee under the provisions of
Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the
findings of the learned Single Judge that the subject land
is not a "granted land", is incorrect; merely because the
said land was acquired by a private party in a public
auction, its character as a "granted land" under Section
3(1)(b) of the 1978 Act does not alter. This aspect having
not been duly considered, there is an error apparent on
the face of the impugned order and therefore, the same is
liable to be set aside and further the writ petition needs to
be favoured. The Additional Government Advocate
NC: 2023:KHC:32861-DB
WA No. 155 of 2023
appearing for the official respondents and the counsel
appearing for the private respondents oppose the appeal
making submission in justification of the reasoning of the
impugned order. The private counsel presses into service
the Apex Court's decision in B.K.MUNIRAJU VS STATE OF
KARNATAKA, AIR 2008 SC 1438.
3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we
decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the
reasoning of the learned Single Judge as reflected in the
impugned order. Learned counsel appearing for the
private respondents is right in telling that once the land is
bought in a public auction, by no stretch of imagination, it
would fit into the definition of "granted land" as given
under Section 3(1)(b) of the 1978 Act. This view gains
support from the decision of the Apex Court in
B.K.Muniraju's case, supra. Paragraph 16 of the decision
reads as under:
NC: 2023:KHC:32861-DB
WA No. 155 of 2023
"16. In the light of the above principles,
let us consider whether the High Court
committed any error in dismissing the writ
petition. We have already referred to the
recitals in the document produced before
the High Court which though titled as
certificate of grant/Saguvali chit, various
terms and conditions make it clear that the
land was purchased by Motappa in a public
auction on payment of a price for
Rs.408.12. In addition, the two authorities
as well as the High Court adverted to the
revenue extract and concluded that it was
not a "granted land" and it was purchased
in a public auction on payment of a price.
In the light of the factual conclusion, we
are satisfied that the High Court has rightly
refused to quash the orders of the said
authorities and dismissed the writ
petition."
4. Learned counsel Mr. Abhinav appearing for the
private respondents is justified in drawing our attention to
the contents of grant certificate of the year 1940 itself
which specifically mentions about the public auction and
payment of auction price. This document is produced by
the petitioner herself at Annexure-B. Added to this, the
said private respondent has filed the Statement of
Objections wherein a copy of revenue records has been
NC: 2023:KHC:32861-DB
WA No. 155 of 2023
produced at Annexure-R.1 which also mentions about the
public auction that was held on 31.07.1940 and the same
was confirmed vide AD 53/39-40 dated 20.08.1940. It
hardly needs to be stated both the documents at
Annexure-B and Annexure-R.1 are the products of exercise
of statutory power and therefore, they enjoy presumptive
value under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue
Act, 1964. That apart, they are more than 30 years old
and therefore, their presumptive value arises even under
Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. No material
having been produced by the petitioner, there is no
question of rebuttal of the same.
5. The above reasoning has animated the impugned
order rendered by the learned Single Judge. There is
absolutely no scope for the argument that it is infected
with any error, legal or factual. Merely because another
view is possible, an Appellate Court cannot interfere. In
fact, no such view is possible.
NC: 2023:KHC:32861-DB
WA No. 155 of 2023
In view of the above, this writ appeal being
devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly dismissed,
costs having been made easy.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Snb/
