Karnataka High Court
Mohan Manghanani vs Karnataka State Commission For ... on 24 February, 2025
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION No. 52804/2017(GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. MOHAN MANGHANANI,
MANAGING TRUSTEE,
NEW HORIZON EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST,
100FT ROAD, INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560038,
REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
PROF S.N. VISHVESHVARIAH.
2. NEW HORIZON EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST
100 FT ROAD, INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560038
REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE MEMBER,
AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
PROF. S.N. VISHVESHVARAIAH.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI M.S. RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT.MAYA HOLLA, ADVOCATE (HOLLA & HOLLA ASSOCIATES))
AND:
1. KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED
CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES,
No.14/3, II FLOOR,
CFC BUILDING,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
2. SRI. KITTAPPA,
S/O SRI. BOMMANNA BOVI,
-2-
No.117, I MAIN ROAD,
VEERABHADRANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560085.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A.C. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2- WP ABATED VIDE ORDER DATED 29.03.2023)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE
THAT THE PROCEEDINGS IN CASE No.LAND/307/2017
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA STATE
COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED
TRIBES, THE R-1 HEREIN IS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT
JURISDICTION AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
C.A.V. ORDER
The instant writ petition challenges the
order/direction dated 13.10.2017 (Annexure-Q) passed by
respondent No.1, the Karnataka State Commission for
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Bangalore.
2. The petitioner purchased the land bearing Survey No.
9, new Survey No. 42, measuring 1 Acre 35 Guntas,
situated in Kadubeesanahalli Village, Varthur Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk, from Chinnamma, wife of
-3-
Nadupanna, under a registered sale deed dated
10.02.2000. Chinnamma had previously purchased the
said land from the erstwhile vendors. The proceedings
commenced with an application under Section 5 of the
SC/ST (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978
("PTCL Act, 1978" for short) at the instance of respondent
No. 2.
3. The land in question is claimed to have been allotted
in favor of respondent No. 2, who sold it in the year 1957.
Thereafter, it has changed hands through three
subsequent transfers.
4. The application filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act,
1978, was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner vide
order dated 12.07.2016. The order of the Assistant
Commissioner was challenged in W.P. No. 59521/2016
before this Court, wherein an interim order of stay was
granted. In the meantime, respondent No. 2 filed an
application before the first respondent-Commission,
alleging illegal encroachment on the land by the petitioner.
The first respondent-Commission initiated proceedings by
-4-
issuing a notice and scheduling an inspection. At this
stage, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition.
5. Heard Shri M.S.Rajendra, learned Counsel for the
petitioner and Shri A.C.Manjunath, learned Counsel for
respondent No.1.
6. Shri M.S. Rajendra, learned Counsel for the
petitioner, submits that the petitioner purchased the land
under a registered sale deed dated 10.02.2000 from
Smt. Chinnamma, who, in turn, had purchased the land
from the earlier vendors. The land was originally granted
on 27.06.1931 in favour of Shri Bommanna Bhovi, father
of respondent No. 2, who executed a sale deed in 1957
during his lifetime. Respondent No. 2 subsequently filed
an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, 1978,
before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant
Commissioner allowed the application, ordered the
restoration of the land, and declared the sale deeds null
and void. The petitioner challenged the Assistant
Commissioner's order dated 12.07.2016 in W.P. No.
59521/2016. This Court, by order dated 10.12.2018,
-5-
allowed the writ petition and set aside the Assistant
Commissioner's order dated 12.07.2016. The said order
has attained finality.
7. It is submitted that the grievance of respondent No.
2 was to seek the restoration of the land under the PTCL
Act, 1978, and the matter was pending before this Court.
The first respondent-Commission has no jurisdiction to
entertain any complaint or adjudicate issues relating to
immovable property. It is contended that a separate
mechanism has been prescribed for dealing with granted
land, and the first respondent-Commission lacks the
authority to address matters governed by a specific
enactment.
8. Learned Counsel relies on the judgment of this Court in
M.B. Siddalingaswamy v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC
OnLine Kar 4968, to contend that the Commission has no
jurisdiction to entertain disputes between an individual and
the State.
-6-
9. Shri A.C. Manjunath, learned Counsel for respondent
No. 1, submits that a complaint was received regarding
the illegal encroachment of land granted in favor of a
member of the SC/ST community. The Commission has
rightly initiated proceedings to inquire into the alleged
encroachment.
10. Respondent No. 2 is reported to have passed away,
and the petition has been abated against respondent No. 2
as per the order dated 29.03.2023.
11. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the
learned Counsel for the parties, it is evident that the
dispute pertains to land granted in favor of
Shri Bommanna Bhovi, father of respondent No. 2, in the
year 1931. The said granted land was alienated by
respondent No.2 in the year 1957 and subsequently
underwent multiple transfers. The petitioner acquired the
land through a registered sale deed dated 10.02.2000
from Smt. Chinnamma, wife of Nadupanna. Respondent
No. 2 initiated proceedings under Section 5 of the PTCL
Act, 1978, seeking restoration of the land. The Assistant
-7-
Commissioner, vide order dated 12.07.2016, allowed the
application, directing the restoration of the land and
declaring the sale deeds null and void. Aggrieved by the
said order, the petitioner preferred W.P. No. 59521/2016
before this Court. This Court, by order dated 10.12.2018,
set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated
12.07.2016, thereby upholding the validity of the sale
deed dated 10.02.2000 in favor of the petitioner. It is
submitted that the said order has attained finality.
12. The entire dispute between the parties falls within
the purview of the PTCL Act, which provides a specific
mechanism for redressal of grievances concerning granted
land. The PTCL Act establishes a legal framework for both
the allottee and the purchaser, ensuring compliance with
grant conditions. Respondent No. 2 pursued his rights
under the PTCL Act, alleging a violation of grant conditions
and seeking protection and restoration of the land under
Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. The PTCL Act, 1978, is a self-
contained code that lays down the procedural and
substantive provisions for its enforcement. When a
-8-
specialized statutory mechanism is in place under the PTCL
Act, respondent No.1, the Commission lacks jurisdiction to
intervene, particularly when the nature of the dispute does
not fall within its designated functions.
13. This Court in M.B.Siddalingaswamy (supra), while
examining the scope of interference of the Commission,
has held as under:
"15. A reading of the afore-extracted Sections 8
and 10 of the said Act, makes it abundantly clear
that the Commission is not empowered to
adjudicate upon the rights of parties. The power
vested with the Commission of Inquiry and
submission of a report cannot be extended to
adjudicate all disputes between individual and a
State or a statutory authority. The powers
conferred do not contemplate that the Commission
can examine matters like a civil Court and
adjudicate dispute and pronounce its decision
either interim or final or issue a direction of the
kind that is issued in the case on hand."
14. Furthermore, as held by this Court in C.
Ramakrishnappa v. P.S. Venkateshaiah & Ors. (W.P. No.
21702/2018, D.D. 07.06.2022), the Commission lacks
jurisdiction to entertain complaints and conduct inquiries
unless the grievance pertains to safeguarding, protection,
and the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
-9-
Tribes community. An individual dispute, particularly
relating to immovable property between private parties, is
not maintainable before the Commission.
15. In the present case as well, the dispute pertains to
the validity of the transfer of granted land in alleged
violation of the grant conditions. Such matters are
specifically governed and dealt with under the provisions
of the PTCL Act, 1978.
16. In view of the foregoing, the proceedings initiated by
respondent No. 1 - Commission are without jurisdiction
and therefore not maintainable in law. Accordingly, the
following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed;
(ii) The order/direction dated 13.10.2017
(Annexure-Q) passed by first respondent-the
Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Bangalore is
hereby quashed. Consequently, the
proceedings initiated by the first respondent-
- 10 -
Commission against the petitioner are also
quashed.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
Yn.
