Back
2005 Supreme(Kar) 592
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
D. V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J.
V. HANUMANTHAIAH -Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 51552 of 2003 (SC/ST).
Decided on : 27th September, 2005
Sri B.S. Gurudath, Advocate for Petitioner;
Sri Bharamagouda B. Goudar, High Court Government Pleader for Respondents-1 to 3;
M/s. Prakash T. Hebhar and M.A Venugopal, Advocates for Respondent-4;
Sri Muniraju for M/s. Mylaraiah Associates and Sri M. Siddamallappa, Advocates for Respondents-5 to 11.
Headnote:Karnataka Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribes (Prohibition Of Transfer Of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 - Grant of land to depressed classes
Karnataka Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe (PTCL) Act, 1978 -Preamble -Preamble -Judicial deprecation -Authorities under the Act -Exercise of power by -Quixotic and arbitrary exercise deprecated. [D. V. Shylendra Kumar, J]: The provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (PTCL) Act, 1978, (for short Act ) have proved to be a fertile ground for unending litigation during the course of which the statutory functionaries, namely, the Assistant Commissioner as the first authority and the Deputy Commissioner as the appellate authority also join the fray, many a times by taking sides to promote interest of one side or the other, though without any justification either on facts or in law, exercise their power in quixotic, arbitrary, whimsical manner, assume jurisdiction which is not conferred under the Act, pass orders which do not bear scrutiny even in the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India even for a moment and bring to ridicule the law, provisions of the Act and the efforts on the part of law makers to achieve certain social goals and objectives.
Cases Referred: 2003(1) KCCR SN 30; 2002(3) KCCR 1633; 1993 (1) Kar. L. J. 328.
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1961 -Revenue Court -Section 25 -Revenue Court -Appellate authority (Deputy Commissioner) under Section 5-A of the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act, 1978 is not a revenue Court -Hence, it cannot exercise inherent powers under Section 25. [D. V. Shylendra Kumar, J]: There is no such enabling provision either under the provisions of this Act or under the rules, so far as disposal of appeal under Section 5A of the Act read with Rule 5A of the Rules which enables the appellate authority under this Act to invoke Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. There is nothing in either of these provisions to indicate that the appellate authority as a statutory tribunal under this Act under Section 5A of the Act becomes either a Revenue Court or any of the powers of such Revenue Court is extended to the statutory tribunal, the Deputy Commissioner functioning as an appellate authority under Section 5A of the Act.
Cases Referred: 2003(1) KCCR SN 30; 2002(3) KCCR 1633; 1993 (1) Kar. L. J. 328.
Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (PTCL) Act, 1978 -Powers of appellate authority -Section 7A -Powers of appellate authority -Earlier round of litigation and enquiry concluded -Appeal preferred against order of Asst. Commissioner and order passed therein -A successor to the office of Deputy Commissioner cannot re-open the matter, or the appellate authority cannot sit in appeal against its own order just because yet another person comes and occupies the seat -Such an exercise cannot be undertaken even under Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act -If so done, the action is quixotic, erratic and arbitrary -In the instant case, order so passed for second time after conclusion of proceedings deprecated and directed Government to take appropriate action against the erring officer. [D. V. Shylendra Kumar, J]: The impugned order, on the fact of it, is a telltale revelation that the Special Deputy Commissioner is bent upon promoting the cause of the appellant-fourth respondent as also that of his other co-sharers. It is rather unfortunate that such officers functioning as statutory authorities under the Act, by such conduct and erratic, irrational, arbitrary exercise of their powers, are virtually setting at naught the very purpose and object of the Act which is made for protecting and lending a helping hand to the underprivileged, exploited and weaker sections of the society who have been sought to be conferred with certain benefits, which they would have lost more out of their ignorance and due to exploitation by the more privileged sections in the society and the attempts on the part of the legislature to set right such inequalities. The authorities functioning under the Act are expected to exercise their statutory functions by functioning in a manner as provided under the very statute, with restraint, care and for the purposes of the Act and not to derail the provisions of the Act. The action on the part of the Special Deputy Commissioner in this case in entertaining the second round of appeal in Appeal No. SC/ST (A) 25/2001-02 has caused further hardship and misery to the petitioner, a situation which could have never happened but for the impugned order. The officer functioning as the appellate authority under the Act in passing the impugned order being a Special Deputy Commissioner and as he becomes an ex-officio appellate authority under the Act because of his position as Deputy Commissioner has actually caused the opposite of what the framers of the law seek to achieve.
Cases Referred: 2003(1) KCCR SN 30; 2002(3) KCCR 1633; 1993 (1) Kar. L. J. 328.
Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (PTCL), 1978 -Appellate authority -Section 5-A -Appellate authority -Is not a revenue Court -Hence, it cannot exercise powers under section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1961. [D. V. Shylendra Kumar, J]: There is no such enabling provision either under the provisions of this Act or under the rules, so far as disposal of appeal under Section 5A of the Act read with Rule 5A of the Rules which enables the appellate authority under this Act to invoke Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. There is nothing in either of these provisions to indicate that the appellate authority as a statutory tribunal under this Act under Section 5A of the Act becomes either a Revenue Court or any of the powers of such Revenue Court is extended to the statutory tribunal, the Deputy Commissioner functioning as an appellate authority under Section 5A of the Act.
Cases Referred: 2003(1) KCCR SN 30; 2002(3) KCCR 1633; 1993 (1) Kar. L. J. 328.
Judicial Academics -Merger of orders of statutory authorities -Order of first authority merges with that of the appellate authority -The original order does not exist independently thereafter.
Cases Referred: 2003(1) KCCR SN 30; 2002(3) KCCR 1633; 1993 (1) Kar. L. J. 328.
The provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'Act'), have proved to be a fertile ground for unending litigation during the course of which the statutory functionaries, namely, the Assistant Commissioner as the first authority and the Deputy Commissioner as the Appellate Authority also join the fray, many a times by taking sides to promote interest of one side or the other, though without any justification either on facts or in law, exercise their power in quixotic, arbitrary, whimsical manner, assume jurisdiction which is not conferred under the Act, pass orders which do not bear scrutiny even in the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India even for a moment and bring to ridicule the law, provisions of the Act and the efforts on the part of law makers to achieve certain social goals and objectives.
2. The present writ petition illustrates vividly as to how a successor Deputy Commissioner can misuse the powers of an Appellate Authority under Section 5-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, even to the extent of sitting in appeal over an appellate order that had been passed in the exercise of the very power and jurisdiction by his predecessor to characterise the earlier order that had been passed by the very Appellate Authority as illegal, not one in consonance with the provisions of the Act; that the order passed is not one that is envisaged under the provisions of the Act; that by calling in aid as apology, the powers under Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'KLR Act'), he can do all these things for the purpose of exercising the very appellate jurisdiction under Section 5-A of the Act which had been once invoked against the very order and which had been exercised by the very Appellate Authority for entertaining another appeal against the very order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in the present case which is dated 27-7-1992 against which, two sets of appeals had been filed earlier, one at the instance of the person claiming under the grantee as an applicant, i.e., Appeal No. SC/ST.12/1992-93 and the other Appeal No. SC/ST.15/1992-93 by persons who were in possession and occupation of the land which had come to be disposed of, by partly allowing the appeal of the applicant and dismissing the appeal of the respondents therein, persons claiming under the purchaser and who were in possession in terms of the appellate order dated 4-2-1994 and notwithstanding, the incumbent Deputy Commissioner not only entertains a fresh round of appeal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 27-7-1992, nine years after passing of the original order and 7 years after passing of the appellate order because of which the original order had got merged with the earlier appellate order and inspite of that, not only entertains the appeal by purporting to condone the delay in preferring the appeal, but characterizing the earlier order of the Appellate Authority to be bad in law etc., allows the present round of appeal, sets aside the entire order of the Assistant Commissioner which had reached finality in terms of the appellate order dated 4-2-1994 passed by the very Appellate Authority i.e., the predecessor Deputy Commissioner in the earlier round and remands the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh disposal.
3. It is such sorry state of affairs which are revealed in the present writ petition questioning/challenging such arbitrary, quixotic, mala fide exercise of power by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore, who had acted as an Appellate Authority under Section 5-A of the Act and passed such an order on 29-9-2003 (copy at Annexure-D) to the detriment of the present writ petitioner who is before this Court praying for invalidation of such order of the Special Deputy Commissioner.
4. In the cour
