IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
R. Devdas, J.
Muniraju S/o Late Yellappa - Petitioner
Versus
State of Karnataka Rep By Its Revenue Secretary and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.52945 of 2018 (SC/ST)
Decided On : 19-05-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 226, 227 – Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 – Section. 4 and 5 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11 – PTCL Act – Sections 4, 5 – Sale of Granted Land – Declaration – Purchasers preferred an appeal before Deputy Commissioner and appeal was dismissed – Not being satisfied, purchasers approached this Court in W.P., which was dismissed and writ appeal filed by purchasers in W.A. was also dismissed as withdrawn – In meanwhile, Smt Narasamma, widow of Poojiga, who felt threatened by interference caused by Sri N.Kumar and Sri N.Ravikiran, filed O.S. seeking a decree of permanent injunction – Suit was decreed and therefore Sri N.Kumar and Sri N.Ravikiran preferred a Regular Appeal in R.A – Regular Appeal and thereafter Regular Second Appeal in R.S.A. were also dismissed – RSA was dismissed – Regular Second Appeal was filed by Sri N.Kumar and Sri N.Ravikiran in R.S.A – RSA was dismissed oy order – However, it is contended that during course of Regular Second Appeal in RSA Smt. Narasamma, w/o Poojiga died and therefore when applications were filed by different parties claiming to be legal representatives of Smt. Narasamma, an enquiry was directed to be conducted to find out as to who amongst five persons are legal representatives of Smt.Narasamma. All five persons were given opportunity to adduce evidence and to be cross examined – By order it was held that Smt. Venkatamma, W/o Yellappa, her sons Sri Venkatesh, S/o Yellapppa and Sri Muniraju, S/o Yellappa are legal representatives of Smt.Narasamma – Claim of Sri Venkatesh as adopted son and Sri Madhu of being legal representatives was rejected.
Finding of the Court:
This is not a case where time for approaching Assistant Commissioner could commence from date of execution of document – This is a case falling under Section 5(3) of Act where a presumption shall be drawn that where any granted land is in possession of a person, other than original grantee or his legal heir, it shall be presumed, until contrary is proved that, such person has acquired land by a transfer which is null and void under provisions of subsection (1) of Section 4 – Burden is on 4th respondent herein to prove that he has obtained prior permission from government, in terms of Section 4(2) of Act and that Smt. Venkatamma and her children, including petitioner herein have executed sale deed in his favour – Question of application of ruling of Apex Court regarding delay and laches would arise only if 4th respondent is able to prove that sale deed was legally executed by Smt. Venkatamma and her children, consequent to which time starts running for petitioner – Impugned orders passed by Assistant Commissioner and order passed by Special Deputy Commissioner are hereby quashed and set aside –
Result :Writ Petition Partly Allowed
ORDER :
This case has a checkered history. On 06.11.1939, 2 acres 4 guntas of land in Sy.No.114 of Ramagondanhalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk was granted by the sub-divisional Officer to Sri Poojiga s/o Yellappa with a condition of non-alienation for a period of 20 years. However, Poojiga sold the granted land in favour of Govindappa s/o Nanjappa on 24.10.1951, before the completion of the non-alienation period. Thereafter the lands changed hands three times, the last of the transactions being on 17.11.1980, when it was purchased by Sri N.Ravikiran and Sri N.Kumar. Sri Poojiga filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner, invoking the provisions of Section 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short ‘the PTCL Act’). By order dated 31.12.1983, the Assistant Commissioner allowed the application while holding that the first sale transaction dated 24.10.1951 was in contravention of the conditions of grant and therefore the said transaction and all subsequent transactions are void. It is contended that the land was restored, physically to Poojiga on 11.09.1985. Sri Poojiga died in the year 1988.
2. The purchasers i.e., Sri N.Kumar and Sri N.Ravikiran preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner and the appeal was dismissed on 02.02.1998. Not being satisfied, the purchasers approached this Court in W.P.No.18169/1998, which was dismissed on 11.08.1999 and the writ appeal filed by the purchasers in W.A.No.6649/1999 was also dismissed as withdrawn, on 23.10.2000. In the meanwhile, Smt Narasamma, the widow of Poojiga, who felt threatened by the interference caused by Sri N.Kumar and Sri N.Ravikiran, filed O.S.No.46/1992 seeking a decree of permanent injunction. The suit was decreed and therefore Sri N.Kumar and Sri N.Ravikiran preferred a Regular Appeal in R.A.No.63/1998. The Regular Appeal and thereafter Regular Second Appeal in R.S.A.No.761/2001 were also dismissed. The RSA was dismissed on 22.06.2007.
3. In the meanwhile, Sri N.Kumar and Sri N.Ravikiran, who had suffered the orders at the hands of the Assistant Commissioner and an adverse order in the original suit filed by Smt. Narasamma, filed O.S.No.193/1995 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District arraigning Smt.Narasamma, W/o Poojiga as the defendant, seeking a declaration that the endorsement dated 31.12.1983 issued by the Assistant Commissioner is null and void and sought for permanent injunction. It appears that during the pendency of the suit Smt. Narasamma passed away and therefore her daughter Smt. Venkatamma, her children Sri Venkatesh and Sri Muniraju were brought on record as the legal representatives of Smt.Narasamma. The said Sri Venkatesh and Sri Muniraju (the petitioner herein) filed an interlocutory application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC r/w Section 5(2) of the PTCL Act seeking rejection of the plaint, on the ground that suit is barred by an express provision of the PTCL Act and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. When the application was rejected, Sri Venkatesh and the petitioner herein filed W.P.No.13523/2012. This Court by order dated 13.06.2012 allowed the writ petition and consequently I.A.No.19 was also allowed while holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the specific bar provided under the PTCL Act. Sri N.Kumar and Sri N.Ravikiran had preferred an SLP calling in question the order passed in W.P.No.13523/2012 and on dismissal of the SLP, they had filed a review petition in R.P.No.41/2013. Nevertheless the review petition was also dismissed by order dated 17.10.2014.
4. In the meanwhile, after passing away of Smt.Narasamma, one Sri Venkatesh approached the Tahsildar seeking mutation of katha in his name, on the ground that Smt.Narasamma had left behind a Will. The katha was mutated in the name of Sri Venkatesh in IHC No.13/2004-05 dated 02.03.2005 and MR No.87/2004
Point of law : Special Deputy Commissioner is entitled to go into the merits of the matter including question of delay and laches in filing the application before the Assistant Commissioner.
A grantee cannot file a second application for land resumption after a prior rejection, as it violates principles of estoppel and res judicata.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the strict application of the PTCL Act, particularly regarding the prohibition of transfer of granted land, the binding nature of non-alienation....
The permission to sell granted land under the PTCL Act, 1978 does not require the sale to be made to a specific person, and the grant of permission by the Government suffices the legal requirement.
A person whose claim to land has been extinguished by a legally valid order of forfeiture under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act lacks the necessary locus standi to challenge subsequent administrative ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.