Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(Kar) 1868

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K. NATARAJAN, J.
SMT. DHANALAKSHMI, W/O. Y. NAGRAJ - PETITIONER
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT - RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION No.13664 of 2014 (SC/ST)
Decided On : 13-12-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI PRAKASH T. HEBBAR, ADVOCATE
For the Respondents:SRI VENKAT SATYANARAYAN, SRI K.P. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE

The main legal point established in the judgment is that land granted by public auction on upset price, even if subsequently reduced, cannot be considered as granted land under the PTCL Act.

Headnote:
PTCL Act - Land Grant - Section 5, Section 4(2) - The court discussed the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, particularly Section 5 and Section 4(2). The court interpreted the definition of 'granted land' and the conditions of non-alienation under the PTCL Act. The court emphasized that the land granted by public auction on upset price, even if subsequently reduced, cannot be considered as granted land under the PTCL Act. The court also highlighted the importance of producing documents to prove the grantee's belonging to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe community. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these provisions, leading to the setting aside of the Deputy Commissioner's order.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the Deputy Commissioner's order restoring the land in favor of the grantee, which was previously dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner. The land was granted to Chikkayellamma with a condition not to alienate for 15 years, but it was sold to Yellappa. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal and restored the land, leading to the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the land granted by public auction on upset price, even if subsequently reduced, cannot be considered as granted land under the PTCL Act. The court also noted the inordinate delay in taking up the proceedings and the lack of evidence regarding the grantee's belonging to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe community.
Issues: The issues included the interpretation of the PTCL Act, the validity of the Deputy Commissioner's order, and the delay in taking up the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the PTCL Act, particularly the definition of 'granted land' and the conditions of non-alienation. The court also considered the principle of delay and laches in taking up the proceedings.
Final Decision: The court set aside the Deputy Commissioner's order, allowing the writ petition.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case:

Case Overview: The petitioner challenged the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 28.02.2014, which restored land in favor of the grantee (legal representative) by setting aside a previous dismissal order. (!)
Land History: The land (4 acres in Sy.No.223) was granted to Chikkayellamma by the Government on 25.06.1976 with a condition not to alienate for 15 years. She subsequently sold 2 acres to Yellappa in 1991 and the remaining 2 acres to the same person in 1991. (!)
Procedural History: After an enquiry by the Tahsildar, the Assistant Commissioner initially concluded the land was not "granted land" but an auction sale in 2003. This was appealed, remanded, and then dismissed again in 2008. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal and restored the land in 2014, which was challenged via Writ Petition No.13664 of 2014 (SC/ST). (!) (!)
Petitioner's Argument: Counsel argued that the land was sold via public auction on an upset price (Rs.342.50 ps) plus a bond fee. Therefore, it cannot be considered "granted land" under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (PTCL Act), especially since the PTCL Act commenced in 1979. (!)
Respondent's Argument: The Government Pleader contended that although an upset price was collected, it was reduced (75% waived), and thus the land should be construed as "granted land" subject to the non-alienation conditions under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act. (!)
Court's Finding on Land Status: The Court noted that while the Deputy Commissioner's order mentioned a reduced upset price, no documentary evidence was produced to prove this reduction. The saguvali chit clearly indicated the land was sold via public auction on an upset price. Consequently, the land does not qualify as "granted land" under Section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act, rendering the non-alienation conditions inapplicable. (!)
Reliance on Precedent: The Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in B.K. Muniraju vs. State of Karnataka (AIR 2008 SC 1438), holding that a document titled 'Certificate of Grant' does not automatically make land "granted land" if recitals show it was purchased in a public auction. (!)
Lack of Caste Proof: The Court observed that the legal representative failed to produce any document proving the grantee belonged to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community as of the date of the auction. (!)
Delay and Laches: The Court highlighted an inordinate delay (over 10 years) in taking up proceedings after the sale in 1986. Citing Vivek M.Hinduja and others vs. M. Ashwatha and others (2018(1) Kar. L.R 176), the Court held that parties must approach authorities within a reasonable time, even in suo motu actions. (!)
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed. The Deputy Commissioner's order dated 28.02.2014 was set aside because the land was not "granted land" under the PTCL Act and due to the principles of delay and laches. (!) (!)

ORDER :

This petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 28.02.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, for having restored the land in favour of respondent No.4 by setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 01.12.2008.

2. Heard the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Learned counsel for the legal representative of the grantee remained absent.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the land in Sy.No.223 (old Sy.No.33) of S.Medahalli Village, Sarajapur Hobli, Anekal Taluk, measuring 4 acres has been granted to one Chikkayellamma by the Government on 25.06.1976 with a condition not to alienate the granted land for 15 years. However, the said Chikkayellamma sold 2 acres of land in favour of Yellappa on 28.08.1991. Again, the remaining land measuring 2 acres of land was sold in favour of the same Yellappa on 22.10.1991. When the said Yellappa tried to mutate his name in the revenue records based upon the sale deed, an enquiry has been made by the Tahsildar and sent a report to the Assistant Commissioner on 29.08.2001. Based upon the report of the Tahsildar, the Assistant Commissioner took up suomotu proceedings under Section 5 of the PTCL Act and after issuing notice to both the grantee as well as the purchaser and after conducting the enquiry came to the conclusion that the land is not a granted land, but it was an auction sale vide his order dated on 28.06.2003. Assailing the rejection of application, the grantee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 23.03.2007 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration. Then the Assistant Commissioner took up the proceedings and again passed the order dismissing the application vide order dated 01.12.2008. Assailing the same, the legal representative of the grantee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner and after considering the record, the Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal and restored the land in favour of the legal representative of the grantee vide his order dated 28.02.2014 produced as AnnexureA, which is under challenge before this Court by the purchaser by way of writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the land in question has been granted to one Chikkayellamma on upset price and the saguvali chit reveals that upset price has been collected showing that the land has been sold in a public auction for Rs.342.50 ps. apart from the bond fee of Rs.15/. Once the land has been sold for an upset price, it cannot be held that the land is a granted land under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (‘PTCL Act’ for short), which came into force with effect from 01.01.1979. Therefore, on this ground, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is not sustainable. In support of the case, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B.K.Muniraju vs. State of Karnataka & others reported in AIR 2008 SC 1438 and contended that subsequently, in the year 2010, the legal representative of the grantee filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner, which came to be rejected on 16.07.2011 by dropping the proceeding. The same was not challenged by the legal representative of the grantee, which attained finality. Such being the case, the Deputy Commissioner ought not to have allowed the appeal. He further contended that even otherwise there is more than 10 years of delay in filing the application by the legal representative of the grantee. Therefore, on these grounds the order of the Deputy Commissioner is not sustainable. Hence, prayed for allowing the petition.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader supported the order of the Deputy Commissioner and contended that though upset price was c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(Kar) 1868

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUK. NATARAJAN, J.SMT. DHANALAKSHMI, W/O. Y. NAGRAJ - PETITIONER VersusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT - RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION No.13664 of 2014 (SC/ST) Decided On : 13-12-2019

The main legal point established in the judgment is that land granted by public auction on upset price, even if subsequently reduced, cannot be considered as granted land under the PTCL Act.

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K. NATARAJAN, J.
SMT. DHANALAKSHMI, W/O. Y. NAGRAJ - PETITIONER
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT - RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION No.13664 of 2014 (SC/ST)
Decided On : 13-12-2019