Back
1999 Supreme(Kar) 681
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.
Thimmanna Naik and others —Appellant
Vs.
The Deputy Commissioner and others —Respondent
Writ Petition No. 17082 of 1999
Decided on : 26-11-1999
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. K.M. Natraj, for the Appellant
Mr. V. Jayaram, Government Advocate, for the Respondent
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'granted land' under the Karnataka Act No. 2 of 1979 and the application of Section 4(1) regarding the legality of the transfer of the land.
Headnote:
Granted Land - Land Grant - Karnataka Act No. 2 of 1979, Section 5 - Section 3(b), Section 3(2), Section 2(8), Section 2(14) - The court discussed the definition of 'granted land' under Section 3(b) of the Karnataka Act No. 2 of 1979, and referred to the definitions of 'land' and 'class of land' under Section 2(8) and Section 2(14) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The court interpreted the inclusive definition of 'granted land' to include dry land, wet land, garden land, or plantation land granted by the State Government to a person belonging to the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes. The court also examined the caste of the grantee and concluded that as the grantee belonged to a caste included in the list of Scheduled Castes, he belonged to the Scheduled Caste, thus rejecting the petitioner's contentions.
Fact of the Case:
The land was granted to the father of Respondent No. 3, who later transferred it to the wife of Petitioner No. 1. Proceedings were initiated under Section 5 of the Karnataka Act No. 2 of 1979, resulting in the order for resumption of the land in favor of the grantee or his legal heirs. The petitioners challenged the order, arguing that the land was not granted land and that the authorities did not investigate the caste of the grantee or the nature of the grant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the land fell within the definition of 'granted land' under the Act, and that the grantee belonged to a caste included in the list of Scheduled Castes, thus rejecting the petitioner's contentions. The court also held that the transfer of the land after the commencement of the Act without the required permission was illegal and null and void under Section 4(1) of the Act.
Issues: The issues revolved around whether the land qualified as 'granted land' under the Act, the caste of the grantee, and the legality of the transfer of the land after the commencement of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the definition of 'granted land' under the Act, the examination of the caste of the grantee, and the application of Section 4(1) regarding the legality of the transfer of the land.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed by the court, and costs were awarded to the respondents.
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.—Heard Sri K.M. Nataraj, learned Counsel for the Petitioners.
2. This petition is directed against the order dated 12.10.1998 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada, in No. C. Dis.LND.2:CR:40 of 1997-98 in proceedings under Section 5 of the Karnataka Act No. 2 of 1979, directing the resumption of possession of the land in question which order has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority namely the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 30.3.1999 in case No. A. Dis.PTL.7 of 1998-99. The Petitioner has also challenged the appellate order.
3. The facts of the case in the nut-shell are that, the land was granted in favour of the father of Respondent No. 3, Sri Kartha Ajila vide grant dated 16.3.1960. The grantee transferred the land in favour of the wife of Petitioner No. 1 and mother of Petitioners No. 2 to 4 vide registered sale-deed dated 5.7.1989. On the report of the Tahsildar dated 12.10.1998, proceedings were initiated under Section 5 and the Assistant Commissioner held the transfer dated 5.7.1989 to be null and void and hit by Section 4(1) of the Act. He ordered resumption of the land and its restoration in favour of the grantee or his legal heirs. The purchaser Smt. Saraswathi i.e., wife of the Petitioner No. 1 and the mother of Petitioners No. 2 to 4 filed appeal No. 7 of 1998-99. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal by order dated 30.3.1999. Feeling aggrieved from that order, the Petitioners have come up before this Court.
4. I have heard Sri K.M. Nataraj, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Government Counsel Sri V. Jayaram. The Respondent No. 3 has been served, but none has appeared on his behalf.
5. The Petitioners' Counsel Sri K.M. Nataraj contended that the authorities below acted beyond their jurisdiction in passing the orders impugned as the land has not been the granted land. He contended that the land in the present case is a Puncha land and not an agricultural land or wet land and so it could not be said to be granted land and Act did not apply. He further contended that the authorities below did not investigate the question whether the grantee belonged or belongs to depressed class or Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The authorities without investigating that question and without recording any finding on that aspect of the matter, could not exercise powers under Section 5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners further contended that the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have not applied their mind to the question whether the land was granted free of cost or for upset price or for a price less than the full market value and as such, the order, impugned suffers from jurisdictional error.
6. These contentions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners have hotly been contested.
7. The question is whether the land was granted or not, whether Puncha land was included in it or not. The granted land has been defined under Section 3(b) which reads as under:
Section 3(b): Granted land means any land granted by the Government to a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes and includes land allotted or granted to such persons under the relevant law for the time being in force relating to agrarian reforms or land ceilings or abolition of inams, other than that relating to hereditary offices or rights and the word 'granted' shall be construed accordingly.
Section 3(b) uses the expression "any land granted by the Government to a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes". Then it also gives inclusive definition that it includes also "lands allotted or granted to such persons under the relevant law for the time being in force relating to agrarian reforms or land ceilings or abolition of inams". The later part is inclusive and the earlier part is exhaustive. The expression 'land' has not been specifically defined in the Karnataka Act No. 2 of 1979. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 i.e.
