2011 Supreme(Kar) 78

High Court of Karnataka
D.V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR
Ganga Naika & Others
Versus
State Of Karnataka, Represented By Its Secretary, Revenue Department, Bangalore & Others
WRIT PETITION Nos.2682-2684 of 2011 (SC-ST)
Decided on: 28-01-2011

Headnote:KARNATAKA SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PROHIBITION OF TRANSFER OF CERTAIN LANDS) ACT, 1979 - Sections 3(1)(b) & 5-A: [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Scheduled land was originally a granted land in favour of persons belonging to Scheduled Caste Community - Petitioner who had earlier claimed interest in land by way of purchasing the land under a sale deed having not enforced his right under sale deed, later on claiming interest as a tenant under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 obtained occupancy rights by order of Land Tribunal - Later on sold the land - Appeal by original grantee to annul sale transaction and resume the land - Deputy Commissioner set aside order of Assistant Commissioner declaring transactions to be null and void and directed resumption of land - Writ challenging the order of Deputy Commissioner - Held, The lease for creating tenancy envisages the landlord or a person who has ownership of the agricultural lands which is being cultivated on some terms by another person who becomes a tenant. All the requirements were never there and assuming that the 1st petitioner also belongs to the Scheduled Caste Community and there was good working arrangement between the 1st petitioner and the 5th respondent, that can never prevail over operation of the law and it is for this reason, this Court does not recommend to go by the order passed by the Land Tribunal. While such is the legal position, on the basis of the factual position as it emerges and even the 1st petitioner does not get any right, the arguments that the sale transaction had taken place after the prohibitory period has expired is only rejected, as in the fist instance the 1st petitioner never acquires any right either through the order passed by the Land Tribunal under the provisions of the KLR Act or such right gets extinguished when once the provisions of the PTCL Act operates. Apart from this legal position, the factual position also clearly shows that there is no bona fides on the part of the 1st petitioner in pursuing such relief, particularly, before the Land Tribunal and writ jurisdiction is one to provide relief only to such persons who approach this Court for ventilating the bona fide grievance and not to those who come with stimulating grievance. There is no merit at all in this petition to disturb the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner who has only passed an order to sub-serve and achieve the object of the PTCL Act. Even assuming that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner falter either in recognizing the proper legal position or the factual position ultimately the result cannot be any different. What the Deputy Commissioner, annual the sale transaction resume the land to the State and restitute it to the original grantee, that precisely being what is required to be achieved under the provisions of the Act and a proper action warranted in law and it is therefore, no, scope for interference with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and accordingly the writ petitions are dismissed.

       KARNATAKA SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PROHIBITION OF TRANSFER OF CERTAIN LANDS) ACT, 1979 - Sections 3(1)(b) & 5-A: [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Scheduled land, originally a granted land in favour of person belonging to Scheduled Caste - Petitioner who had earlier claimed interest in land by way of purchasing the land under a sale deed having not enforced his right under sale deed, later on claimed interest as a tenant under Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and obtained occupancy rights by order of Land Tribunal - Lateron sold the land - Appeal by original grantee for resumption of land - Deputy Commissioner set aside order of Assistant Commissioner declaring transactions to be null and void and directed resumption of land - Writ petion against order of Deputy Commissioner - Held, The lease for creating tenancy envisages the landlord or a person who has ownership of the agricultural lands which is being cultivated on some terms by another person who becomes a tenant. All the requirements were never there and assuming that first petitioner also belongs to the Scheduled Caste Community and there was good working arrangement between the first petitioner and the 5th respondent, that can never prevail over operation of the law and it is for this reason, Court does not recommend to go by the order passed by the Land Tribunal. While such is the legal position, on the basis of the factual position as it emerges and even the first petitioner does not get any right, the arguments that the sale transaction had taken place after the prohibitory period has expired is only rejected, as in the fist instance the first petitioner never acquires any right either through the order passed by the Land Tribunal under the provisions of the KLR Act or such right gets extinguished when once the provisions of the PTCL Act operates. Also there is no bona fides on the part of the first petitioner in pursuing such relief, particularly, before the Land Tribunal and writ jurisdiction is one to provide relief only to such persons who approach the Court for ventilating the bona fide grievance and not to those who come with stimulating grievance. Order passed by Deputy Commissioner was not interfered with.