Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
D.V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J.
MUNGAPPA - Petitioner.
Vs.
SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE AND OTHERS - Respondents.
Writ Petition Nos. 18125 and 31938 of 2004 (SC-ST).
Decided on 22nd June, 2005
Case Referred: 2004(5) Kar. L. J. 255.
Grant of land to depressed classes
KARNATAKA SCHEDULE CASTE AND SCHEDULE TRIBES (PROHIBITION OF TRANSFER OF CERTAIN LANDS) ACT, 1978 - Section 4 -Grant of land to depressed classes -There were no separate rules dealing with -Hence, relevant rules under the Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1888 alone are referred to as Depressed Classes Rules -Hence, if there were any prohibitions contained in those rules, violation of terms of grant attracts the provisions of the Act.
[Shylendra Kumar, J]: It is only such provisions governing the grant of land to depressed class persons as contained in the Code or Rules framed thereunder alone is referred to as Depressed Classes Rules. There are no separate Rules of this nomenclature. But it is part of the very Code that was governing the grant of land in favour of persons belonging to depressed classes i.e. the relevant Rules which were very part of the Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1888.
Alienation of granted land
KARNATAKA SCHEDULE CASTE AND SCHEDULE TRIBES (PROHIBITION OF TRANSFER OF CERTAIN LANDS) ACT, 1978 - Alienation of granted land -Land granted under Rule 43 of Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1888 -Period of prohibition of alienation under the rule was 20 years -Grant made in 1954 -Alienated in 1968 -Alienation is hit by Section 4.
[Shylendra Kumar, J]: The transaction of the year 1968, being within the period of 20 years from the date of grant, is necessarily and obviously in violation of the term of the grant and therefore the Assistant Commissioner was fully justified in invalidating this transaction in the light of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner has unnecessarily without understanding the correct position of the law and on surmises and presumptions, proceeded to hold that in the absence of grant order or any material placed by the applicant to this effect before the Assistant Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner could not have passed the order and invalidate the sale.
Land grant under
MYSORE LAND REVENUE CODE, 1888 - Rule 43 -Land grant under -For granting land to depressed class, there were no separate rules -Rule necessarily applies -Hence period of non-alienation thereunder applies -Sale of such land attracts the provisions of Karnataka SC and ST (PTCL) Act, 1978.
[Shylendra Kumar, J]: In the present case, there is no dispute that the land has been granted in favour of a person belonging to scheduled caste and the available material on record amply demonstrates that it was a grant by the government to a person as a person belonging to depressed class. Provisions of Rule 43(1), (5) and (8) are necessary attracted and the condition that the land should not be alienated for a period of 20 years is imposed on the grant statutorily irrespective of what should have been read. In fact the grant order recites that the land should not be alienated permanently. Though the wording is not so in the grant order, if the grant order imposes a more beneficial condition to the advantage of the grantee, then such a condition cannot be ignored.
Case Referred: 2004(5) Kar. L. J. 255.
Section 4 -Grant of land to depressed classes -There were no separate rules dealing with -Hence, relevant rules under the Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1888 alone are referred to as Depressed Classes Rules -Hence, if there were any prohibitions contained in those rules, violation of terms of grant attracts the provisions of the Act. [Shylendra Kumar, J]: It is only such provisions governing the grant of land to depressed class persons as contained in the Code or Rules framed thereunder alone is referred to as Depressed Classes Rules. There are no separate Rules of this nomenclature. But it is part of the very Code that was governing the grant of land in favour of persons belonging to depressed classes i.e. the relevant Rules which were very part of the Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1888.
Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1888 - Land grant under - Rule 43 -Land grant under -For granting land to depressed class, there were no separate rules -Rule necessarily applies -Hence period of non-alienation thereunder applies -Sale of such land attracts the provisions of Karnataka SC and ST (PTCL) Act, 1978. [Shylendra Kumar, J]: In the present case, there is no dispute that the land has been granted in favour of a person belonging to scheduled caste and the available material on record amply demonstrates that it was a grant by the government to a person as a person belonging to depressed class. Provisions of Rule 43(1), (5) and (8) are necessarily attracted and the condition that the land should not be alienated for a period of 20 years is imposed on the grant statutorily irrespective of what should have been read. In fact the grant order recites that the land should not be alienated permanently. Though the wording is not so in the grant order, if the grant order imposes a more beneficial condition to the advantage of the grantee, then such a condition cannot be ignored.
Case Referred: 2004(5) Kar. L. J. 255.
These two writ petitions are by brothers, who had claimed as the legal heirs of one Nagamma, a person belonging to Scheduled Caste community and in whose favour an extent of 1 acre of land in Sy. No. 155 of Hoodi Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore had been granted in terms of the sanction order dated 25-6-1952, issued by the Revenue Commissioner in No. D.Dis.C1.DR. 177/51-52. The sanction order was one sanctioning the grant of land to an extent of 9 acres 39 guntas in the said survey number to nine persons mentioned in the order, who belong to Adi-Karnataka community, i.e., an extent of 1 acre in favour of each person, in accordance with the Rules governing the grant of land to persons belonging to depressed class.
2. This sanction order was followed by an individual grant order dated 30-3-1954 in favour of the said Nagamma, granting her one acre of land subject to the condition that the land should not be alienated permanently, as the grant was free of cost, and further a saguvali chit was issued on 23-10-1954, whereunder also, the condition that the land cannot be alienated by the grantee permanently had been mentioned.
3. It is such land that had been sold by the daughter of the original grantee Smt. Byramma in terms of the sale deed dated 16-4-1968 in favour of one Ramanujalu Reddy - father of the third respondent. It is in respect of this transaction, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 31938 of 2004 had filed an application to the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the Act'), praying for invalidation of the sale transaction and for resumption and restitution of the land etc. The Assistant Commissioner issued notice to the person in occupation of the land namely the third respondent herein and conducted an enquiry and found that the land in question had been granted in favour of said Nagamma, who belonged to Scheduled Caste, free of cost, subject to the condition that the land should not be alienated for good and such a land having been sold in terms of the sale transaction dated 16-4-1968, the transaction is clearly one attracting the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act, as the sale was in violation of the condition of the grant and accordingly invalidated the transaction and directed resumption and restitution of the land to the applicant and for effecting necessary corrective entries in the revenue records.
4. Third respondent-son of the purchaser, preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. During the pendency of the appeal, the brother of the original applicant namely Mungappa-petitioner in Writ Petition No. 18125 of 2004, also joined the proceedings by seeking impleadment, as it was his claim that he had also interest in the land in question being a legal heir of the original grantee.
5. The Special Deputy Commissioner being of the view that the applicant had not placed material to show that the land was a granted land; that the Assistant Commissioner had merely relied on certain copy of the saguvali chit and mutation record, which were available before him; that the appellant has contested the position that the land was a granted land; that the Assistant Commissioner had not secured and verified this aspect and had not examined the original record and in this view of the matter, allowed the appeal and left the matter at it. It is against this order, the present this writ petitions are filed.
6. I have heard the submissions of Sri R. Shivachandra Naik, learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 18125 of 2004 and Sri M. Narayana Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.31938 of 2004 and Sri Venkata Reddy, learned Counsel for the third respondent-the son of the purchaser as also Sri Bharamagouda B. Goudar, learned Government Pleader.
7. Submissions on behalf o
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
