Karnataka High Court
Late Thimmaraju vs State Of Karnataka on 29 May, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF MAY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT APPEAL NO.924 OF 2023 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
LATE: THIMMARAJU
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS
1. SMT. MALLAMMA,
D/O LATE THIMMARAJU
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
2. SMT. VASANTHAMMA
W/O LATE THIPPESWAMY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
LATE: EERANNA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS
3. SRI. V THIPPESWAMY
S/O LATE EERANNA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
4. SMT. DEVEERAMMA
W/O LATE EERANNA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
APPELLANTS/ PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 4
R/AT NAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE
CHALLAKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA - 577 522
5. SRI. VEERABHADRAPPA
S/O LATE SANNATHIMAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
2
LATE: SMT. THIMMAKKA
D/O LATE SANNATHIMMAYYA
SINCE DECEASED BY HER SON
6. SRI. SHIVAMURTHY
S/O EKANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
7. SMT. BASAMMA
D/O EKAANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
8. SRI. THIPPESWAMY
S/O LATE NINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
LATE: SMT. MALLAMMA
D/O LATE SANNATHIMMAIAH
SINCE DECEASED BY HER SON
9. SRI. P THIPPESWAMY
S/O LATE PAPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
LATE: SMT. SHANTHAMMA
D/O LATE SANNATHIMMAYYA
SINCE DECEASED BY HER SON
10. SRI. MAHADEVAPPA
S/O LATE THIPPESWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
11. SRI. MALLESHA
S/O LATE THIPPESWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
12 . SMT. THIPPAMMA @ THIPPAKKA
W/O LATE RAVI,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
13 . SMT. CHOWDAMMA
W/O SIDDAPPA,
D/O LATE SANNTHIMMAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
3
14 . SRI. S KRISHNAMURTHY,
S/O SIDDAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
APPELLANTS 5 TO 14 R/AT,
NAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHALLAKERE TALUK,
CHITRADURGA - 577 522.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI, GOPALA B V, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPT. OF REVENUE
M S BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
CHITRADURGA - 515 281
3. ASST. COMMISSIONER
CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION
CHITRADURGA - 515 281
4. TAHSILDAR
CHALLAKERE TALUK
CHALLAKERE - 577 522
5. SMT. THIMMAKKA
W/O LATE MALLAPPA
SINCE DECEASED ON 31.08.2023
6. SRI. M KUMAR
S/O LATE MALLAPPA
SINCE DECEASED ON 05.02.2022
AS PER THE ORDER DATED 29.04.2025
R5 & R6 DELETED, THEY HAVE NO
LEGAL HEIRS EXCEPT R7 TO R9
7. SRI. M.INDRESH
S/O LATE MALLAPPA
MAJOR IN AGE
4
8. SRI. M RAJU
S/O LATE MALLAPPA
MAJOR IN AGE
9. SRI. M SHIVAMURTHY
S/O LATE MALLAPPA
MAJOR IN AGE
RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 9
R/AT, BEHIND GOVT MIDDLE SCHOOL
GANDHINAGAR
CHALLAKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA - 577 522
10. SMT. HASEENAJAN
W/O LATE SHEIKH IMITIAZ
MAJOR IN AGE
11. SRI. MOHIDULLAH
S/O LATE SHEIK IMITIAZ
MAJOR IN AGE
12. SRI. TOUHIDULLAH
S/O LATE SHEIKH IMITIAZ
MAJOR IN AGE
13 . SRI MOHAMME TAHAFARAAZ
S/O LATE SHEIK IMITIAZ,
MAJOR IN AGE,
RESPONDENTS NO.10 TO 13
R/AT SRI. RANGA NILAYA,
YARAGUNTESHWARA LAYOUT,
BEHIND LIC OFFICE,
HIRIYURU,
CHITRADURGA - 572 143.
14. SRI. M S JAYARAM
S/O LATE M SRIRAM,
MAJOR IN AGE,
15. SRI. M S RAJARAM
S/O LATE M SRIRAM,
MAJOR IN AGE,
5
16. SRI. M S SRINIVAS
S/O LATE M SRIRAM,
MAJOR IN AGE,
17. SRI. M S SRINATH
S/O LATE M. SRIRAM,
MAJOR IN AGE,
RESPONDENTS NO.14 TO 17
R/AT GANDHINAGARA,
CHALLAKERE TOWN,
BEHIND KARNATAKA TEXTILE,
CHALLAKERE TALUK,
CHITRADURGA - 577 522.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-4;
SRI. DEVHADAS, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR R-7 TO R-9;
SRI. DEVHADAS, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. K.S.ANASUYADEVI, ADVOCATE FOR R-10 TO R-13;
SRI. SIDDAPPA B M, ADVOCATE FOR R-15 TO R-17;
R-14 IS SERVED;
VIDE ORDER DATED 29.04.2025, RESPONDENTS 7 TO 9 ARE
LR'S OF DECEASED R-5 AND R-6 )
THIS WA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET
ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT DATED 19/06/2023 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4101/2022 AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION BY GRANTING THE PRAYERS
THEREIN.
THIS WA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON
02.05.2025 AND COMING ON FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT'
THIS DAY, T.M. NADAF J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
6
CAV ORDER
( PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF )
This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated
19.06.2023, in Writ Petition No.4101/2022 (SC/ST), passed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case as found in paragraph
Nos.4 to 7 of the order impugned reads as under:
"4. It is not in dispute that one Guruvayya, Sanna
Thimmayya and Dodda Thimmayya were granted with
lands in Survey No.248 vide order dated 14.4.1956.
Survey No.248/1 measuring 9 acres 27 guntas is granted
to one Guruvayya, similarly, land bearing survey No.248/2
measuring 9 acres 27 guntas is granted to Sanna
Thimmayya and the land bearing Survey No.248/3
measuring 9 acres 27 guntas is granted to one Dodda
Thimmayya.
5. Respondents 10 to 13 are tracing their right and title
through the original grantee namely Guruvayya based on a
registered sale deed. It is not in dispute that petitioners
are the legal heirs of one Sanna Thimmaiah, while
respondents 5 to 9 are the legal heirs of Guruvayya, who
are not disputing the title of respondents 5 to 13. Survey
No.248/1 which is granted to Guruvayya is re-assigned
new survey No.471 while Survey No.248/2 measuring 9
acres 27 guntas which was granted to Sanna Thimmaiah is
reassigned new Survey No.472.
7
6. The petitioners herein strangely moved an application
before respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner seeking
change of khata on the premise that the land which was
granted to their ancestor Sanna Thimmaiah is now
restored by the competent authority under the provisions
of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for
short "PTCL Act"). Respondent No.3-Assistant
Commissioner in turn, referred the matter to Respondent
No.4-Tahsildar to hold an enquiry. On receipt of report by
Respondent No.4-Tahsildar vide Annexure-G, Respondent
No.3-Assistant Commissioner strangely takes up a suo-
moto enquiry under the provisions of the PTCL Act and
passes an order for restoration in respect of Survey No.471
which was never granted to the petitioners' ancestor
namely Sanna Thimmaiah.
7. Respondents 10 to 13 feeling aggrieved by this order of
restoration, preferred an appeal before respondent No.2-
Deputy Commissioner. Respondent No.2- Deputy
Commissioner on an enquiry found that petitioners were
not entitled to seek restoration of the land. Accordingly,
respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner has allowed the
appeal and reversed the order of restoration. The Deputy
Commissioner while allowing the appeal held that
petitioners cannot assert and claim that they are the legal
heirs of Guruvayya. The second ground on which the
Deputy Commissioner reversed the order is on the premise
that the lis between the parties is purely a disputed
question of fact and therefore, has proceeded to relegate
both the parties to establish their right before the
8
competent civil Court. This order is under challenged at the
instance of the petitioners."
3. The learned Single Judge after going through the entire
materials placed before him found that the order passed by the
Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga - respondent No.2 does not call
for interference and dismissed the writ petition, subscribing his
reasons for the same at paragraph Nos.8 to 11, which reads as
under:
"8. On meticulous examination of the entire material on
record, I would not hesitate to hold that the entire claim of
the petitioners is found to be totally misconceived. Under
the garb of change of katha, petitioners have cleverly
made an attempt to lay a claim over Survey No.248/1 now
reassigned as Survey No.471 which is granted to
Guruvayya. If Survey No.471 was allotted to Guruvayya
and he during his life time has sold half portion in favour of
the vendor of respondents 10 to 13, the petitioners under
the garb that Guruvayya died intestate cannot lay a claim
over the property by approaching the revenue authorities.
Whether Guruvayya died intestate and whether
respondents 10 to 13 have acquired valid right and title
based on a registered sale deed are all disputed questions
of facts. Though an impression was given to this Court that
petitioners intended to get their names mutated to Survey
No.248/2 based on the restoration order passed by the
Assistant Commissioner, the statement made across the
Bar is found to be not in consonance with the pleadings
and claim by the petitioners before respondent No.3-
9
Assistant Commissioner and respondent No.2-Deputy
Commissioner.
9. Be that as it may, if petitioners' ancestor Sanna
Thimmaiah was granted Survey No.248/2 measuring 9
acres 37 guntas, which is reassigned Survey No.472, the
order passed by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner is
in accordance with law and does not warrant any
interference. Respondents 10 to 13 to further strength
their case have produced the record of rights at Annexure-
R5 which pertains to Survey No.471, which is standing in
the name of Guruvayya and Annexure-R6 which is standing
in the name of Sanna Thimmaiah i.e. survey No.472.
These two revenue entries would clinch the entire
controversy followed by the revenue entries. The present
petitioners have meddled with the property bearing Survey
No.472. The same is evident from Annexure-R12, which is
produced along with the statement of objections. This is
the sale deed executed by petitioners on 11.5.2015 in
favour of one S.S. Matapathi. This transaction pertains to
Survey No. 472. If petitioners have meddled and alienated
the entire extent in Survey No.248, by way of mutation
proceedings, they cannot lay a claim over the land granted
in favour of Guruvayya under whom the petitioners are
tracing their right and title based on a registered sale
deed. It is also borne out from the records that
respondents 10 to13 are in fact purchasers in respect of 4
acres 39 guntas, while remaining portion is found to be in
possession of respondents 5 to 9, who claim to be the legal
heirs of Guruvayya, which they have acquired pursuant to
the restoration order passed in their favour.
10
10. In the light of the discussions made supra, I am not
inclined to interfere with the order passed by respondent
No.2-Deputy Commissioner. The application submitted by
petitioners seeking change of khata pertaining to the land
which was granted to Guruvayya was itself not
maintainable. Respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner
has also misdirected himself and has exceeded in his
jurisdiction in converting the mutation proceedings into a
restoration proceedings under the provisions of the PTCL
Act. This has only aggravated the situated and respondents
10 to 12 and 5 to 9 for no reasons are compelled to
undergo long ordeal of unnecessary litigation.
11. Hence, the writ petition being devoid of merits is
dismissed accordingly."
4. It is this order which is under challenge in this intra-court
appeal.
5. Heard Sri.V.Lakshminarayana, learned Senior Counsel for
Sri.B.V.Gopala, learned counsel appearing for appellants,
Smt.Saritha Kulkarni, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 4;
Sri.Devhadas, learned Senior Counsel for Sri. Narendra D.V. Gowda,
learned counsel for Respondent Nos.7 to 9 and for
Smt.K.S.Anasuyadevi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.10 to 13,
and Sri. Siddappa B.M., learned counsel for respondent Nos.15 to
17.
11
6. Sri.V.Lakshminarayana, learned Senior Counsel
submitted that one Challakeraiah, was having three sons, viz.,
1) Doddathimmaiah, 2) Sannathimmaiah and 3) Guruvaiah. The
said Doddathimmaiah died unmarried and Guruvaiah though
married to Ramakka both died issueless. Sannathimmaiah was
married to one Mallamma and they had five daughters and three
sons. For brief reference the genealogical tree produced along with
the writ appeal, is reproduced as it is:
"I Sri/Smt.P. Thippeswamy, S/o. Eranna a resident of Kasaba Hobli
Gandhinagara Village / Town, I have written the family tree as under. If
there is any wrong information in my family tree statement, I am
personally liable for legal action. In relation to the family tree, the family
tree is written in the presence of Notary with the attestation of two local
witnesses and a self-declaration which is true. This Family Tree is
written for the purpose of :
Challakeraiah (late)
Chowdamma (late)
st
1 Doddathimmaiah Sannathimmaiah (late) Guruvaiah (late) Ramakka
(late) Unmarried Mallamma (late) (late) No children
Thimmakka Lakshmakka Mallamma Shantamma Thimmaraju 6th Eranna Veerabhadrappa
(Approx.75) (late) (late) (Approx.68) (late) Chowdamma (late) (Approx.84)
married married Durugamma (Approx.55)
(late)
Mallamma Thipeeswamy Sharadamma Deviramma
(Approx.4 (late) (late) (Approx.48)
Thippeswamy
(Approx.30)
12
The family tree written is confirmed by the informant himself
as per the information given to me. This family tree is not a
substitute document for creating civil documents. But will be
treated as document of Succession Letter.
Name and Signature of witnesses
Sd/-
Channakeshava Murthy
Dhananjaya."
7. This genealogical tree is issued as per the information
given by the party (V.Thippeswamy). As per the endorsement in
Kannada, the document shall not be considered as a substitute for
creating a civil Right. This document shall not be considered as a
succession letter. The appellants herein are the legal
representatives of branch of Late Sri.Sannathimmaiah. Appellants
herein are claiming to be the only nearest legal heirs to
Sri.Guruvaiah who died issueless, being the descendants of his
brother Sannathimmaiah.
8. He further submitted that all the three brothers were
granted 9 acres, 27 guntas each of land by the erstwhile Amaldar in
the year 1956, free of cost. As per the then Revenue Code there is a
prohibition of 15 years for transfer of the land. The said Guruvaiah
during his life time sold 2 acre, 33 guntas of land in favour of
Aseena Banu and Sait Imtiyaz. There was an order on 15.09.1995
13
by the then Assistant Commissioner under the Karnataka Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain
Lands) Act, 1978, (for short "PTCL Act") which was reversed by the
Deputy Commissioner holding that there is a dispute in respect of
legal representatives of deceased Guruvaiah and the Revenue
Courts are not enjoined with the powers to decide on the said facts.
However, held that since the order passed the Assistant
Commissioner suffers from legal error, the land cannot be resumed
to the Government as the purchasers are in the possession of the
land for more than 12 years, and so also for more than 30 years
from the date of sale deed till the order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner.
9. It is the specific case of the appellants that the land
measuring 9 acres, 27 guntas granted in favour of Guruvaiah was in
Survey No.248/1, re-numbered as new survey No.471. The land
measuring 4 acre, 31½ guntas, out of 9 acres, 27 guntas in
renumbered survey No.471/2 had been sold by Sri.Guruvaiah during
his life time. In the year 1987, the remaining land measuring 4
acres, 37 guntas renumbered survey No.471/1 was sold by one
Thippaiah claiming to be the legal heir of Guruvaiah in favour of
G.S.Thippe Swamy. The said sale comes to be cancelled by the
order of the Assistant Commissioner on 19.04.2000 on the premise
14
that there is violation of provisions contained more especially under
Section-4 of the PTCL Act and the land was ordered to be restored
to the legal representatives of the original grantee, which was
challenged before the Deputy Commissioner and the same came to
be dismissed in the year 2005. This, as per the submission of the
learned Senior Counsel, attained finality as there was no challenge
laid against the said order nor the said Thippaiah who suffered an
order at the first round of litigation had taken any legal action to
claim as legal heir of Guruvaiah.
10. It is further stated that, the appellants being the only
nearest legal heirs as they are the children of the brother of the
deceased Guruvaiah coming within the purview of Class-II heirs are
entitled to the remaining land so also the compensation for the land,
which has now been acquired by the National Highway Authority for
construction of roads.
11. The learned Senior counsel also submitted that the
appellants herein approached the Assistant Commissioner for
entering their names in respect of the land left behind by
Sri.Guruvaiah. The Assistant Commissioner directed the concerned
Tahsildar to report on the legal representatives of Guruvaiah, who
accordingly, filed a report in favour of the appellants, stating that
15
Guruvaiah died issue less and the appellants are the only nearest
legal heirs available in the village. On such report, the Assistant
Commissioner initiated a suo-moto proceedings under the PTCL Act
and passed an order on 12.01.2016, vide Annexure-H, declaring all
the sale deeds in respect of survey No.471, measuring 9 acres, 27
guntas as void and directed to take the land in possession, of
Government free from all encumbrances, to restore the same to the
legal heirs of the original grantee i.e., the appellants herein. The
Deputy Commissioner without going through the provisions of PTCL
Act allowed the appeal setting aside the order passed by the
Assistant Commissioner.
12. The learned Senior counsel stressed upon Sections-5 and
11 of the PTCL Act and submitted, that the order passed by the
Assistant Commissioner holding that the appellants herein are the
legal heirs of deceased Guruvaiah has become final and cannot be
questioned in any court of law in view of Section-5(2) and the
overriding effect of Section-11 of PTCL Act, which says that the
provisions of the Act are overriding, being the special enactment, all
the provisions of any other Acts, notwithstanding the fact there is
inconsistency. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge
has failed to consider these provisions and came to a wrong
conclusion by upholding the order passed by the Deputy
16
Commissioner, that there are disputed facts with regard to the right
of the legal heirship which comes within the domain of civil court
and seeks to set-aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge
so also to quash the order of the respondent No.2 - Deputy
Commissioner. Alternatively, he submitted that in the event this
Court feels that the parties are to be relegated to the Civil Court for
determination of their rights, in that eventuality the orders passed
by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner at the
earlier point of time dated 19.04.2000 and 09.11.2005 and so also
the finding of the Assistant Commissioner on the legal heirship of
the deceased Guruvaiah in the order at Annexure-H, dated
12.01.2016 may not be disturbed, in view of Section-5 and Section-
11 of the PTCL Act.
13. Per contra, Sri. R.Devhdas, refuting the submissions of
the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that the order
passed by the learned Single Judge is in accordance with law. The
original respondent Nos.5 and 6 and respondent Nos.7 to 9 herein
are the direct legal heirs of Guruvaiah. Though the appellants claims
to be the legal heirs of the branch of the Sannathimmaiah, the
alleged brother of Guruvaiah, in the presence of Class-I heir they
cannot claim themselves as the legal heirs of Guruvaiah. That apart,
the respondent Nos.5 to 9 are the Class-I legal heirs of Guruvaiah
17
and the appellants herein are not at all connected to the family of
the said respondents. They are total strangers. The genealogical
tree produced by the appellants clearly shows that the same is
issued at the instance of one of the appellants, as per his
information. The same shall not be considered as a substitute to a
civil document nor shall be construed as a succession letter. So also,
respondent Nos.10 to 13 being the subsequent purchasers perfected
their rights and in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in NEKKANTI RAMALAKSHMI VS.STATE OF KARNATAKA
AND ANOTHER1, in view of delay, the prayer to seek the sale
deeds be annulled cannot be granted. He also submitted that, part
of the land in dispute in survey Nos.471/1 and 471/2, now acquired
by the National Highway Authority. In view of the disputed rights of
the parties, claiming under deceased Guruvaiah the Land Acquisition
Officer has, deposited the amount of compensation, before the
Reference Court. The parties are required to prove their rights
before the Reference Court as the said Court being the Civil court in
its originality, the party which succeeds would get all the benefits
viz., the compensation amount as well as restoration of the land in
terms of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and
confirmed by the learned Single Judge.
1
2018 (1) KAR LR 5 (SC)
18
14. Upon hearing the learned Senior counsel for the
respective parties and perusing the records placed before us, the
admitted fact is that Guruvaiah had been granted 9 acres, 27
guntas of land in erstwhile survey No.248/1 and new survey
No.471. Dodda Thimmaiah and Sanna Thimmaiah were also granted
9 acre 27 guntas each in the very same survey No.248/2, and
248/3 new Survey Nos.472 and 473.
15. The disputed facts are that the appellants herein claims
that Dodda Thimmaiah, Sanna Thimmaiah and Guruvaiah are
brothers. Dodda Thimmaiah died unmarried and Guruvaiah died
issueless. They are the nearest legal heirs available to Guruvaiah
being the children of his elder brother Sanna Thimmaiah. Whereas
the respondent Nos.5 to 9 claims that they are the class-I heirs of
Guruvaiah and the appellants are no where related to the family of
Guruvaiah. Guruvaiah is not the brother of either Dodda Thimmaiah
or Sanna Thimmaiah.
16. From the records, it is evident that Sanna Thimmaiah has
been granted 9 acres, 27 guntas of land in survey No.248/2 and the
land bearing Survey No.248/3 measuring 9 acres, 27 guntas is
granted to one Dodda Thimmayya. As per Annexure-R6, the RTC of
the land bearing Survey No.472, was standing in the name of
19
Sannathimmaiah. The entire land in survey No.472 has been sold to
one S.S.Matapathi in the year 2015 by the appellants. Now they are
claiming on the property which has been granted in favour of
Guruvaiah as the nearest legal heirs on the premise that the said
Guruvaiah died issueless. Both the claims by the appellants as well
as respondent nos.5 to 9 herein are in respect of the legal heirship
to deceased Guruvaiah, which is the exclusive domain of the Civil
Courts as per the powers given under the law. The parties are
required to prove their relationship with deceased Guruvaiah by
clinching evidence as the right involves substantial right to status,
and to the immovable property left behind by the deceased. Neither
the Revenue Authorities nor this Court exercising power under
Article - 226 of the Constitution of India has any jurisdiction to
adjudicate upon the disputed facts between the parties.
17. The Deputy Commissioner has taken a call on the
disputed facts in terms of law holding that the Revenue courts have
no jurisdiction to decide on the disputed facts between the parties.
The same being a civil right required to be adjudicated before a
Competent Civil Court. The learned Single Judge is right in
upholding the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. We do not
find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
20
18. So far as the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for
the appellants that a civil suit is not maintainable or parties cannot
approach Civil Court on any decision rendered under Section-5 of
the PTCL Act so also due to overriding effect by way of Section-11 of
PTCL Act is concerned. For easy reference we reproduce Section-5
and 11 of PTCL Act as under:
"5. Resumption and restitution of granted lands.- (1) Where,
on application by any interested person or on information
given in writing by any person or suo-motu, and after such
enquiry as he deems necessary, the Assistant Commissioner
is satisfied that the transfer of any granted land is null and
void under sub-section (1) of section 4, he may,-
(a) by order take possession of such land after evicting all
persons in possession thereof in such manner as may be
prescribed:
Provided that no such order shall be made except after
giving the person affected a reasonable opportunity of being
heard;
(b) restore such land to the original grantee or his legal heir.
Where it is not reasonably practicable to restore the land to
such grantee or legal heir; such land shall be deemed to have
vested in the Government free form all encumbrances. The
Government may grant such land to a person belonging to
any of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in
accordance with the rules relating to grant of land.
[(1A) After an enquiry referred to in sub-section (1) the
Assistant Commissioner may, if he is satisfied that transfer of
21
any granted land is not null and void pass an order
accordingly.
(2) [Subject to the orders of the Deputy Commissioner
under section 5A, any order passed] 1 under 2 [sub-section
(1) and (1A)]2 shall be final and shall not be questioned in
any court of law and no injunction shall be granted by any
court in respect of any proceeding taken or about to be taken
by the Assistant Commissioner in pursuance of any power
conferred by or under this Act.
(3) For the purposes of this section, where any granted land
is in the possession of a person, other then the original
grantee or his legal heir, it shall be presumed, until the
contrary is proved, that such person has acquired the land by
a transfer which is null and void under the provisions of sub-
section (1) of section 4.
5(A) xxx
6 xxx
7 xxx
8 xxx
9 xxx
10 xxx
11. Act to override other laws.- The provisions of this Act
shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent
therewith contained in any other law for the time being in
force or any custom, usage or contract or any decree or order
of a court, tribunal or other authority."
22
19. As could be gathered from Section-5 of PTCL Act, the
intent of the legislature is very much clear, by sub-section-(2) of
Section-5 of PTCL Act. Sub-section-(1) says the Assistant
Commissioner on an application by any interested person or on
information given in writing by any person or suo moto and after
such enquiry, if satisfied that the transfer of any granted land is null
and void being against the provisions contained under Section-4 of
the PTCL Act, he may pass an order to declare that the deeds under
which a transfer is made as null and void and resume the land and
regrant it to the original grantee or the legal heirs as per sub-
section-(3). What comes out from the provisions more especially
sub-section-(2) is, it is only the order declaring the transfer as void
and resumption of the land and restoring the land to the grantee or
in his absence to his Legal Representatives if any, shall not be
questioned before any Court except as per Section-5A of PTCL Act,
before the Deputy Commissioner. But the same shall not be read
beyond that, i.e., adjudicating as to who are the legal heirs of the
original grantee when there is a dispute between the parties in that
respect. The legislatures with all wisdom left it to the domain of the
civil courts for adjudication. The provisions cannot be stretched to
the extent of holding that the Assistant Commissioner can decide on
the heir-ship of any original grantee as argued by the learned senior
23
counsel. The disputed facts between the parties, is a civil right
required to be decided as contained under the provisions of Section-
34 of the Specific Relief Act before the Competent Civil Court. As
per the record, and submissions made by the respective learned
Senior Counsel, it is clear that part of the land in dispute has been
acquired by the National Highway Authority and in view of the
dispute the matter has been referred to the reference court,
wherein the amount of compensation has been deposited, the
parties if they choose so, may approach the reference court to stake
their claim with regard to the heir-ship as claimed by the appellants
as well as by the respondent Nos.5 to 9 to deceased Guruvaiah. In
that eventuality, the Reference Court being a Civil Court in its
originality adjudicate upon the rights of the parties exclusively and
independently on the evidence and proof, both oral and
documentary, submitted by both the parties.
20. For the reasons stated supra we do not find any infirmity
in the order passed by the respondent No.2 - Deputy
Commissioner, Chitradurga and the order passed by the learned
Single Judge. In view of the same, we proceed to pass the
following:
24
ORDER
i) Writ appeal filed challenging the order dated 19.06.2023,
in Writ Petition No.4101/2022(SC/ST), passed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court, fails as devoid of
merits. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed.
ii) No order as to cost.
Sd/-
(V KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
JJ
