Karnataka High Court
Smt Marakka vs Deputy Commissioner on 28 June, 2024
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:24066
WP No. 28611 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 28611 OF 2023 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT MARAKKA
W/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/A No.S GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE
CHIKANNAHALLI POST
THAVAREKERE HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU-562 130.
2. SMT NARASAMMA
D/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH
W/O LATE MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/A NO.SULIVARA VILLAGE
CHIKANNAHALLI POST
THAVAREKERE HOBLI
Digitally signed
by BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
NARAYANAPPA BENGALURU-562130.
LAKSHMAMMA
Location: HIGH 3. SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY
COURT OF S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/A NO.S GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE
CHIKKANAHALLI POST
THAVAREKERE HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU-562130.
4. SMT MUTHULAKSHMI
D/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH
W/O LATE HANUMAIAH
R/A NO. SULIVARA VILLAGE
CHIKANNAHALLI POST
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:24066
WP No. 28611 of 2023
THAVAREKERE HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU-562130.
5. SRI LAKSHMANA
W/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/A NO.S GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE
CHIKANNAHALLI POST
THAVAREKERE HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU-562130.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAGHAVAN M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
BENGALURU
BENGALURU-560001.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SOUTH
SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU
BENGALURU-560001.
SRI KADHARAIAH
SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY LR SON
3. SRI KANTAHRAJU
CAVEATOR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
DONNENAHALLI VILLAGE
CHIKANAHALLI POST
TAVREKERE HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT
BENGALURU-562130.
4. M/S K N S INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD.,
MANAGING DIRECTOR
SRI K N SURENDRA
AT NO.1788/C, 10TH CROSS,
5TH MAIN ROAD, RPC LAYOUT
VIJAYANAGAR, 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-560040
REGISTERED UNDER COMPANY ACT
BENGALURU -560 040.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:24066
WP No. 28611 of 2023
5. SRI H DINESH ALIAS LASHMEGOWDA ALIAS RAJU
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
AT NO.10, 2ND CROSS
TENT ROAD, SANJEEVINI NAGAR
MUUDALAPALAYA
BENGALURU-560072.
6. THE IDL HOMES CO OPERATIVE
BUILDING SOCIETY
REPRESENTED BY
SRI C M SUBBAIAH
JOINT SECRETARY
IDEAL HOMES TOWN
RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR
BENGALURU-560098
REGISTERED UNDER REGISTRATION SOCIETY ACT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R1 & R2
SRI. K SRINIVASA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3
SRI. SUPREETH S, ADVOCATE FOR R6
R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R5 IS
HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED 15.04.2024)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-N
IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU
URBAN DISTRICT AT BENGALURU VIDE PTCL 65/2021 DATED
10/04/2023 FOR SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AND WRIT DIRECTIONS AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
"Wherefore, the petitioners pray that the Honble
Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Certiorari by
Quashing Annexure-N impugned Order of the
Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District at
NC: 2024:KHC:24066
Bengaluru vide PTCL 65/2021 dated 10.04.2023
for such other reliefs and Writ Directions as the
Honble Court may be deem fit to grant including
the costs of this petition."
2. The husband of the first petitioner and father of petitioner
Nos.2 to 5, Narasimhaiah had filed an application for
restoration of property bearing Sy.No.44/2, measuring 1
acre 29 guntas situated at Donnenahalli village,
Tavarekere Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, claiming to be
the grand son of one Sri Kala, who had been granted the
property in the year 1923. It was contended that Kala
had raised a loan to the tune of `50/- from one Sri
Gujjaria and the said property had been mortgaged to
him. However, subsequently, in the year 1965 Gujjaria's
wife Smt.Rangamma, claiming that Gujjaria was the
owner from whom she received title, had executed a Sale
Deed in favour of respondent No.3 and as such, it was
contended that Rangamma had no saleable right in the
property and the property being granted in favour of a
person belonging to Scheduled Caste, the sale which has
been carried out is contrary to and in violation of Section
4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978
NC: 2024:KHC:24066
(for short 'PTCL Act') and therefore, an application had
been filed for resumption of the land.
3. The Assistant Commissioner, vide his order dated
10.2.2021 in K.SC.ST Case No.12/2019 allowed the said
application, declared the sale deeds to be void and
directed the entries of the names of the applicants to be
made. The said order came to be challenged by
respondent No.3 in Revision Appeal No.65/2021, which
came to be allowed by the Deputy Commissioner vide
order dated 10.4.2023 on the ground that the grant
having been made in the year 1923 there was no
prohibition of alienation, the alienation having occurred in
the year 1965, the property having been converted for
non agricultural purposes in the year 2009, the petition
having been filed for redemption in the year 2019 was not
maintainable. The Deputy Commissioner also came to a
conclusion that the sale having occurred prior to the
coming into force of the PTCL Act on 1.1.1979 and the
possession of the property having been handed over to
the mortgagee way back in the year 1923 i.e., 56 years
prior to coming into force of the PTCL Act, the mortgagee
NC: 2024:KHC:24066
has perfected his title by way of adverse possession and
as such, allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed
by the Assistant Commissioner. It is challenging the said
order that the petitioners are before this Court since
Sri Narasimhaiah had expired in the meanwhile.
4. Sri Raghavan M, learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that there is no sale which has occurred by Kala in
favour of anybody, what was only executed was a
mortgage deed which would not give any power or right
to Gujjaria or his wife Rangamma to sell the property, the
sale deed having been executed by Rangamma is non est
and therefore, cannot be said to be a sale within the
purview of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The said
transaction being completely illegal, the aspect of such
sale ought not to have been taken into consideration by
the Deputy Commissioner.
5. Sri Supreeth S, learned counsel for respondent No.6
submits that post the sale in favour of respondent No.3 in
the year 1965 respondent No.3 sold the property to
respondent No.4 on 10.7.2009, who in turn sold the
property to respondent No.6 on 28.3.2012 and
NC: 2024:KHC:24066
respondent No.6 formed a layout after obtaining
necessary permission and sanction from the concerned
authorities and allotted the sites to its members/various
third parties. On that basis, he submits that there is no
infirmity in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner
requiring this Court to interfere with the same.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is
clear and admitted that the original grant was made in
the year 1923. A perusal of the Notification dated
1.1.1979 issued by the Government of Karnataka
indicates that there is no prohibition for sale in respect of
any land which had been granted in the year 1923. There
being no prohibitory period, a transaction could be
entered into by the grantee at any time immediately after
the grant. The said grantee - Kala had executed a
mortgage deed in the year 1923. The mortgagee having
expired, his wife had sold the property in the year 1965.
There is no document which has been placed on record by
the petitioners to indicate that the mortgage deed had
been redeemed or otherwise indicating that the property
had gone back to the grantee and or his family. The
NC: 2024:KHC:24066
mortgage having been admitted, no redemption of the
mortgage deed having been placed on record, the
mortgagee's wife after the expiry of the mortgagee sold
the property in the year 1965 prior to coming into force of
the PTCL Act on 1.1.1979. That the transaction in
question has been entered into prior to the Act coming
into force at a time when there was no prohibition for
such sale. Therefore, there is no violation of any
condition prior to such sale. In view of the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of Manche Gowda v. State
of Karnataka1 more particularly, para 24 thereof, any
transaction which has been entered into prior to coming
into force of the PTCL Act, if not violative of any
condition, would not come within the pale and purview of
the PTCL Act. In the present matter, the mortgage
having occurred in the year 1923, the mortgagee's legal
heir having sold the property in the year 1965 is prior to
the PTCL Act coming into force on 1.1.1979. Thus, I am
of the categorical opinion that the PTCL Act would not be
applicable to the present matter. The other aspects
1 (1984) 3 SCC 301
NC: 2024:KHC:24066
which have been taken into consideration by the Deputy
Commissioner as regards the conversion of the property,
formation of a layout and sale thereof only aid the said
conclusion.
7. In view of the above discussion, consideration and
findings, I am of the considered opinion that no ground is
made out in the present writ petition and there is no
merit in the above petition. The petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ND
