Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 991
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (DHARWAD BENCH)
S. Sujatha, Shivashankar Amarannavar, JJ.
Shankaragouda - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad - Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 100348 of 2014
Decided On : 11-06-2020
G.I. Gachchinamath, Advocate, Gangadhar Hosakeri, Advocate, Rajashekhar Burji, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, particularly focusing on the definition of 'transfer' and the objective of preventing alienation of granted lands.
Headnote:
Transfer of Granted Land - Interpretation of Act Sections - Sections 3(1)(b), 3(1)(e), 4, 5-A - The court discussed the interpretation of the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, particularly focusing on the definition of 'transfer' as provided under Section 3(1)(e) and the prohibition of transfer of granted land under Section 4. The court emphasized the objective of the Act to prevent alienation of lands granted to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the exclusion of testamentary disposition from the definition of 'transfer'. The court also referred to the insertion of Section 5-A, allowing appeals against orders for possession or restoration of land. The court confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge, upholding the decision of the Deputy Commissioner to resume and restore the subject lands to the legal heirs of the original grantee.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the ownership of lands granted to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, based on a Will executed by the original grantee. The Deputy Commissioner directed the authorities to resume and restore the lands to the legal heirs of the original grantee, which was challenged in a writ petition before the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the provisions of the Act, particularly Sections 3(1)(b), 3(1)(e), and 4, were applicable to the case. It upheld the decision of the Deputy Commissioner to resume and restore the subject lands to the legal heirs of the original grantee.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the interpretation of the Act's provisions, the exclusion of testamentary disposition from the definition of 'transfer', and the applicability of the Act to the disputed lands.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Act's provisions, the objective of preventing alienation of granted lands, and the exclusion of testamentary disposition from the definition of 'transfer'. The court also considered the insertion of Section 5-A, allowing appeals against orders for possession or restoration of land.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was dismissed, confirming the decision of the Deputy Commissioner to resume and restore the subject lands to the legal heirs of the original grantee.
JUDGMENT
S.Sujatha, J. - This intra Court appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.11.2013 passed in W.P.No.47742/2004 whereby the writ petition has been rejected confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner, directing the authorities to resume and restore the subject lands in accordance with law within a time frame.
2. Succinctly stated the facts are that the entries made in the revenue records based on the Will dated 27.02.1991 said to have been executed by one Sri Basappa Madar relating to the lands bearing R.S.No.315/B measuring 13 acres 23 guntas, R.S.No.385/4 measuring 1 acre 32 guntas and R.S.No.339/5 measuring 20 guntas situated at Managundi village, taluk and district Dharwad, qua the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'the Act') was the subject matter of the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, Dharwad/respondent No.2 pursuant to the application filed by respondents 3 to 5. Respondent No.2 has held that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the facts of the present case more particularly, Sections 3 (1)(b) and 3 (1)(e) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the respondents 3 to 5 had approached the respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad, who has set aside the order of the respondent No.1 and directed the authorities to resume the subject lands to the Government, thereafter, to restore the lands to the legal heirs of the original grantees in terms of Section 5 (b) of the Act. Challenging the said order, Writ Petition No.47742/2004 was preferred by the appellant before this Court. Learned Single Judge having dismissed the writ petition, the appellant is before this Court.
3. Sri.G.I.Gachchinmath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the provisions of Sections 3 (1) (b) and 3 (1) (e) of the Act in a right perspective. The wrong interpretation of the phrase 'transfer' as employed in Section 3 (1) (e) made by the Deputy Commissioner and confirmed by the learned Single Judge certainly calls for interference by this Court. Placing much emphasis on Section 3 (1) (e), it was submitted that 'testamentary disposition' being excluded, Section 4 of the Act is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The disputed land bearing R.S.No.315/B was originally granted to Sri Hanumantappa s/o Siddawwa Madar on 21.03.1963. Similarly, R.S.No.385/4 and 339/15 were inam lands (service inam) coming under the provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition act, 1961, allotted to one Sri Raja @ Babya s/o Dodda Raju Holer. The said Hanumantappa inherited the lands bearing R.S.Nos.385/4, 339/15 along with R.S.No.315/B. He died on 14.01.1978 as a bachelor.
4. It was submitted that on change of mutation entries in the revenue records during the year 1991 Sri Basappa s/o Mayawwa Madar s/o elder brother of Hanumanthappa continued to be the owner of the lands in question. The said Basappa died on 01.03.1992 having no issues and wife, being a bachelor. Based on the Will dated 27.02.1991 executed by deceased Basappa, the appellant claimed rights over the lands in question. The Tahsildar has entered the name of the appellant in the revenue records.
5. It was submitted that in view of the interference of one Smt.Nagawwa with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands in question, the appellant was constrained to file a suit in O.S.No.413/1997 before the learned Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Dharwad, against Smt.Nagawwa, for declaration and injunction. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.10.1997 decreed the suit and the said decree has attained finality. Such being the position, respondents 3 to 5 claiming to be the legal heirs of the deceased Basappa, filed an application under the provisions of the Act, seeking for restoration of the lands in their names.
6. It was argued that the Assistant Commission
