Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 748
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (DHARWAD BENCH)
S. Sujatha, Jyoti Mulimani, JJ.
Kavita - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner - Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 100893 of 2015
Decided On : 02-07-2020
H.M. Dharigond, Advocate, G.K. Hiregoudar, Advocate, Chetan Limbikai, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the nullification of a sale transaction in violation of the PTCL Act, emphasizing the need for prior permission from the Government for the transfer of granted land.
Headnote:
PTCL Act - Land Revenue - Section 4(1) and (2) - The court confirmed the orders of the competent authorities holding that the sale is null and void as it was made without previous permission from the Government. The judgment elaborated on the scope of Section 4(1) and (2) of the PTCL Act and highlighted the violation of these provisions in the case. The court also referred to the recent decision of the Apex Court in Satyan Vs. Deputy Commissioner, emphasizing the nullification of transactions contravening the statutory provisions of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash orders related to the transfer of granted land, claiming that the sale was in violation of the PTCL Act. The original grantee had sold the land to the petitioner without obtaining prior permission from the Government, leading to a dispute with respondent No.4, who sought restoration of the land.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the sale was in contravention of Section 4(1) and (2) of the PTCL Act, and confirmed the orders of the competent authorities, declaring the sale null and void. The court also reserved liberty to the petitioner to challenge a subsequent order made by the Assistant Commissioner.
Issues: The main issue related to the nullification of the sale transaction in violation of the PTCL Act, and the delay and laches in the application filed by respondent No.4 for resumption of the land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the violation of Section 4(1) and (2) of the PTCL Act in the sale transaction and referred to the recent decision of the Apex Court in Satyan Vs. Deputy Commissioner, which nullified transactions contravening the statutory provisions of the Act.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was dismissed, confirming the order of the learned Single Judge. However, liberty was reserved to the petitioner to challenge a subsequent order made by the Assistant Commissioner.
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Mulimani, J. - This Writ Appeal is preferred against the order dated 15.6.2015 passed in W.P.No.112636/2014 wherein, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, petitioner has come up in this Appeal. In the writ petition, petitioner had sought to quash the following orders:
(i) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Koppal in No. Kham/Appeal/33/2011-12 K.No.10081 dated 16.01.2014 vide Annexure 'A'.
(ii) passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Koppal in No. Kham/PTCL/1.2.5.6/2009-10 dated 17.5.2011 vide Annexure 'B'
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as petitioner and respondents.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
The land bearing Sy.No.30 of Siddapura village, Gangavathi Taluk, Koppal District, measuring to an extent of 4 acres was originally granted to one Shankar, son of Krishna Lamani on 9.2.1982. The original grantee sold the land to petitioner on 22.01.1999 under a registered sale deed.
In pursuance of the sale deed, the name of petitioner was entered in the record of rights as owner of the property and that she was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in question.
In the year 2005, respondent No.4 moved an application before the Tahsildar, Gangavathi Taluk to enter his name in the record of rights in respect of the land in question claiming that deceased Shankar, son of Krishna Lamani has relinquished his rights in his favour. The Tahsildar allowed the application and made an order on 20.01.2005 to enter and show the name of respondent No.4 in the revenue records.
Aggrieved by the order of the Tahsildar, petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 136 (2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act before the Assistant Commissioner, Koppal Taluk. The Assistant Commissioner after holding enquiry, allowed the appeal on 28.2.2006.
Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.4 preferred a revision petition under Section 136 (3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act before the Deputy Commissioner, which came to be allowed on 29.5.2008.
Petitioner challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner by filing a writ petition before this court in W.P.No.30307/2008 and this Court allowed the writ petition by order dated 16.08.2010, thereby, restored the order of the Assistant Commissioner.
It is pertinent to note that while disposing of the above-mentioned writ petition, this Court observed that the name of petitioner to be continued in the revenue records till the sale deed is declared as null and void by any competent authority or Court, the name of the petitioner is to be continued particularly when respondent No.4 cannot be said to be owner by virtue of an unregistered relinquishment deed.
Subsequently, respondent No.4 filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner made an order on 17.5.2011 holding that the alienation made by the original grantee in favour of petitioner/appellant is in violation of the provisions of Section 4(1) and (2) of the PTCL Act.
Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Koppal and the said appeal was allowed on 16.01.2014, confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Hence, petitioner had filed the writ petition before this court.
When the writ petition was posted for preliminary hearing on 15.6.2015, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the granted land is alienated in violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act as no permission was obtained as required under Section 4(2) of the said Act and hence, purchaser will not get the right over the property. Aggrieved by the order of learned Single Judge, petitioner has filed this writ appeal.
4. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner/ appellant that the impugned orders are contrary to the records and are therefore, unsustainable in law.
He submitted that the land in question was granted to one Shankar, son of Krishna Lamani on 9.2.1982. He has sold the land to the petition
