Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K. SOMASHEKAR, UMESH M. ADIGA, JJ.
Mr. Shivapal, S/o. Sri. M. Kalasappa Gowda - Appellant
Versus
Mr. V. Ramprasad S/o. Late V. Varadaraju & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 4531 of 2015 (SC-ST)
Decided On : 19-06-2023
PTCL Act - Section 5, 3(b), 79A - PTCL Rules - Rule 4(4) - Appeal - Transfers to non-agriculturists barred - Acquisition of land by certain persons prohibited - Resumption and restitution of granted lands - Whether a question of law is a substantial one involved in the case or not, the paramount overall consideration is the need for striking a judicious balance between the indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in the life of any lis - Section 3(1)(b) of PTCL Act reveals that when it is not reasonably practicable to restore the land to the original grantee or his legal heir, such land shall be deemed to have vested in Government free from all encumbrances and hence, Government may grant such land to a person belonging to any of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in accordance with rules relating to grant of land. (Para 31).
Finding of the court: Issue emerged between the parties is as regards the sale deed executed by Gowramma in favour of Shivapal. It is stated that the land was granted, recognizing the rights of the original grantee as a ‘Kadim tenant’ under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act. In fact, the Deputy Commissioner has also recorded independent findings in this regard holding that the grant was under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act. These are all the issues which are required to be considered relating to the land which was granted under the Inams guidelines. Indeed the Deputy Commissioner has held that even if it was a granted land, the land was sold after the expiry of non-alienation period of 15 years. These are the issues which are required to be considered on the basis of the materials facilitated by the parties to the proceedings relating to the appeal preferred before the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore.
Result: Appeal is allowed
Key Points: - An appeal filed after the expiry of the period under Section 5-A of the PTCL Act must be accompanied by a separate application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit (!) (!) . - The doctrine of audi alterem partem must be extended to the appellant, and notice must be properly served before passing an order that affects their rights (!) (!) . - A question of law is substantial if it goes to the root of the matter, and the court must balance the need for justice with the necessity of avoiding prolonged litigation (!) (!) . - Orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and confirmed by the Single Judge can be set aside if they are found to be erroneous or violate procedural requirements (!) (!) . - The court may remit the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for a fresh hearing with an opportunity for both parties to present their case (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
This intra-court appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.42727/2013 (SC/ST) dated 29.09.2015. The aforesaid writ petition was decided along with W.P.Nos.19997 to 19998/2013 by rendering a common judgment. The said writ petition W.P.No.19997-19998/2013 was filed challenging the orders passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'KAT') in Appeal No.980/2009 dated 26.04.2013 on I.A.No.10. However, the order passed in W.P.No.19997-19998/2013 is not challenged by the aggrieved party. Therefore, there is no need to discuss about the facts of the said writ proceedings.
2. The subject matter of this litigation relates to Survey No.30 of Kadiganahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk totally measuring 3 acres, out of which the subject matter of case suit is 2 acres. The Special Deputy Commissioner of Inams Abolition, by its order dated 15.09.1958, conferred occupancy right in respect of Survey No.30 measuring 3 acres of Kadiganahalli Village of Bengaluru North Taluk in favour of one Kinchanna Bhovi @ Vaddara Channa Bhovi under the provisions of the Mysore (Personnel and Miscellaneous) Inamss Abolition Act. It appears that the said Kinchanna Bhovi had three sons and one daughter by names Sri. Narayanappa, Sri. Gurappa, Sri. Papanna and Smt. Gowramma. After the death of Kinchanna Bhovi, his sons and daughter succeeded to the aforesaid property.
3. Respondent No.4 in this writ appeal namely Jadhavaji Nagarwala had purchased an extent of (325+210)/2x(390+372)/2 square feets approximately measuring to an extent of 1,01,917 sq.fts.(approx 2.14 acres), out of the total extent of 3.00 acres of Kadiganahalli village, under a registered sale deed dated 20.07.1976 from Sri. Narayanappa, Sri. Gurappa and Sri. Papanna, who were the sons of the original grantee Sri. Kinchanna Bhovi. It is also made clear that they are the legal representatives of Sri. Kinchanna Bhovi. Subsequent to that purchase, Respondent No.4 had also purchased the remaining extent of land in Sy.No.30 under a registered sale deed dated 28.07.1978 from Sri. Narayanappa, Sri. Gurappa, Sri. Papanna and Smt. Jayamma. Accordingly, Respondent No.4 had purchased the entire extent of land in Survey No.30 of Kadiganahalli village.
4. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 in this appeal namely Shri V. Ramprasad had purchased to an extent of 1,01,917 sq.ft (approx-2.14 acres) of land in Survey No.30 of Kadiganahalli village from respondent No.4, under a registered sale deed dated 04.09.1978.
5. Respondent No.7 / The Assistant Commissioner, issued notice to respondent No.4 and after hearing on the said application, he had passed an order declaring that the purchase of 3 acres of land by respondent No.4 / Jadhavaji Nagarwala, in Survey No.30 of Kadiganahalli village, was in contravention of Sections 79-A and 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and consequently, the Assistant Commissioner set aside the said sale deed and forfeited the land to the State Government.
6. On 11.01.2005, Respondent No.3 / Smt. Gowramma, W/o Late Narayanappa and daughter-in-law of Kinchanna Bhovi, filed an application to respondent No.7 / Assistant Commissioner of the Revenue Authority, seeking cancellation of the sale of Survey No.30 to an extent of 2 acres in favour of respondent No.1 / V. Ramprasad. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the said application and forfeited the said land to the Government by his order dated 24.05.1996 and ordered that the said land is vested with the Government. By virtue of the said order of respondent No.7, the Revenue authorities had handed over the possession of the property to the vendors of the appellant on 03.11.2005 and drawn a mahazar regarding handing over the possession of the property in favour of respondent No.3 namely Smt. Gowramma W/o. late Narayanappa, who was the daughter-in-law of Kinchanna Bhovi. After restoration of the land in favour of respondent No.3 by the Assistant Commissioner, the pre
Point of law: Every appeal preferred after expiry of period specified in Sec. 5-A, of Act shall be accompanied by a separate application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit sworn to by....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the abuse of process of law, malafides, and highhandedness in the resumption and restoration of land, leading to the demolition of structures, and ....
Point of law: Decree – Condonation of delay in filing Appeal – Held, appeal preferred before the Deputy Commissioner, where there was a delay of around 3 years 10 months would any way have been condo....
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.
Fraud vitiates all judicial acts; claims of land ownership based on fraudulent documents cannot establish valid title.
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
