Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B.S. Patil, J.
Gowramma and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
The Asst. Commissioner, Bangalore North Division and Ors. - Respondents
W.P. Nos. 19997-19998/2013 and W.P. No. 42727/2013 (SC-ST)
Decided On : 29.09.2015
PTCL Act - Land Dispute - Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Land) Act, 1978 - Summary of Acts and Sections: PTCL Act, 1978, Sections 3(1)(b); Land Reforms Act, 1961, Sections 79-A, 80 - The court discussed the application of the PTCL Act and the Land Reforms Act in the context of a land dispute. It interpreted the definition of 'granted land' under the PTCL Act and the principles of natural justice in the proceedings under the Land Reforms Act. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the legal provisions and the application of the principles of natural justice in the proceedings under the Land Reforms Act.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a land dispute between parties arising from orders passed under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Land) Act, 1978 and the Land Reforms Act, 1961. The dispute centered around the classification of the land as 'granted land' and the legality of the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the land was not a 'granted land' as defined under the PTCL Act and that the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal were justified. It also held that the proceedings under the Land Reforms Act were initiated after an unreasonable delay, violating the principles of natural justice.
Issues: The issues included the classification of the land under the PTCL Act, the legality of the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, and the violation of principles of natural justice in the proceedings under the Land Reforms Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the definition of 'granted land' under the PTCL Act, the application of the PTCL Act and the Land Reforms Act in the dispute, and the violation of principles of natural justice in the proceedings under the Land Reforms Act.
Final Decision: Both writ petitions were dismissed as they were found to be devoid of merit.
B.S. Patil, J.
1. These writ petitions arise between the same parties. The land involved in these writ petitions is the same. Writ Petition No. 42727/2013 arises out of an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru, under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Land) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the PTCL Act') whereas, Writ Petition Nos. 19997-98/2013 arises out of the proceedings initiated under Section 79-A and Section 80 of the Land Reforms Act, culminating in the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'KAT').
2. W.P. No. 42727/2013 is filed by one Mr. Shivapal challenging the order dated 06.08.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru, thereby allowing the separate appeals filed by Sri V. Ramaprasad and Sri Kishore Nagarwal under Section 5A of the PTCL Act thereby setting aside the order dated 11.07.2015 of the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division, Bengaluru.
3. The Assistant Commissioner had ordered for resumption and restoration of 2 acres of land comprised in Sy. No. 30 situated in Kadiganahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North (Additional) Taluk on the ground that the land was a granted land and was sold without prior permission on 20.07.1976 in favour of one Sri Jadhavji Nagarwal and therefore, there was violation of provisions of the PTCL Act. The said order was passed on an application filed by one Smt. Gowramma against Sri Prakash Babu as respondent.
4. Against this order of the Assistant Commissioner, S.C.S.T. (A) No. 13/2011-12 was filed by Sri V. Ramaprasad alleging that the land in Sy. No. 30 was an Inam land granted in favour of Kinchana Bhovi @ Vaddara Channa vide order dated 10.05.1958; after his death, his sons Narayanappa, Gurappa and Papanna sold the land measuring 1,01,917 sq. ft. out of the total extent of 3 acres 10 guntas in favour of Jadhavji Nagarwal vide Sale Deed dated 20.07.1976 who in turn sold the land in his favour (Sri V. Ramaprasad) vide Sale Deed dated 04.09.1978. He urged that the land was not a granted land.
5. He also urged that order passed by the Assistant Commissioner had been challenged by another purchaser by name Ramu and the Deputy Commissioner found that provisions of the PTCL Act were not applicable and hence, set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner on 18.10.2006. The said order was challenged in W.P. No. 9888/2007 by the legal representatives of the grantee and persons claiming under them. This Court by order dated 09.06.2008 held that the Deputy Commissioner was not right in deciding the matter as the appellant before the Deputy Commissioner had sought to withdraw the appeal and hence, the writ petition was allowed and the order of the Deputy Commissioner was set aside.
6. Sri V. Ramaprasad sought review of the said order dated 09.06.2008 passed in W.P. No. 9888/2007 by filing R.P. No. 93/2010. The said review petition was disposed of on 10.03.2010 holding that the order of the Assistant Commissioner was not binding on the appellant as he was not a party to the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner. Liberty was reserved to him to challenge the order of the Assistant Commissioner.
7. Sri V. Ramaprasad contended before the Deputy Commissioner that he was in two minds whether to challenge the order of the Assistant Commissioner or not; however, after securing opinion, as he was advised to seek a formal declaration that the order of the Assistant Commissioner was a nullity, he filed SC. ST. (A) 13/2011-12 before the Deputy Commissioner. Sri V. Ramaprasad urged that the alleged sale in favour of Shivpal, writ petitioner, by the legal representative of original grantee on 16.11.2006, was a nullity in the eye of law.
8. Similarly, Kishore Nagarwal filed SC. ST. (A) 40/2011-12 challenging the very same order of the Assistant Commissioner urging similar grounds.
9. After hearing both parties, the Deputy Commissioner has passed an or
AI
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
