Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 920
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J
SMT.B.LAKSHMIDEVAMMA – Appellant
Versus
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH DIVISION BENGALURU – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 11517 OF 2012 (SC-ST)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: DR. NANDA KISHORE
For the Respondents:SRI VENKAT SATYANARAYAN, HCGP FOR R-1, R-2 & R-10, SRI DHANANJAY JOSHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI VIGNESHWAR U., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-3, SRI B.S.RAGHU PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R-5 TO R-9
Sales of land granted under 'Grow More Food Scheme' do not qualify for protections under the SC & ST (PTCL) Act, requiring prior governmental approval for transfers.
Headnote:(A) Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India - Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 - Nullity of sales without government permission - Petitioners sought to quash orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner based on earlier land grants - The court emphasized the requirement of appropriate permissions under the SC & ST (PTCL) Act for any transfer involving granted lands, particularly emphasizing that land granted under 'Grow More Food Scheme' does not qualify as granted land under the SC & ST Act. (Paras 11-19)
(B) Procedural fairness - Failure of respondents to conduct proper inquiry or review pertinent documents led to dismissal of petitions deemed illegal and arbitrary - The court stressed that the dismissal of applications without evaluating produced original records and grant orders violated the principles of natural justice, warranting judicial intervention. (Paras 3.8, 20)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, descendants of H. Krishnamurthy, claimed ownership over land granted to him. Following his death and unauthorized sales of portions of this land, they sought annulment of such sales, claiming the transactions contravened the SC & ST (PTCL) Act, which necessitates prior permission for transfers involving scheduled caste lands. (Paras 3-5)
Findings of Court:
The court found no illegalities in the decisions of the lower authorities, noting that the original grant was made under the 'Grow More Food Scheme' at a price; hence the SC & ST (PTCL) Act did not apply. The court upheld the rationale of the prior rulings and dismissed the petitions. (Paras 20-21)
Issues: The primary issues included whether the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner were improper and if the SC & ST (PTCL) Act's provisions were applicable to the transactions in question. (Paras 10, 11)
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the absence of government approval rendered transfers void. Furthermore, land granted under schemes such as 'Grow More Food Scheme,' even if at a subsidized price, does not fall under the protection of the SC & ST (PTCL) Act. (Paras 18-19)
Result: Writ Petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of parties involved in the writ petition. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioners allege illegal sales and seek annulment. (Para 3) |
| 3. respondents argue the legality of transactions. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. governing legal principles from precedents. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. court evaluates the legal context and grants. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. statutory interpretation regarding the sc & st act. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. final judgment dismissing the writ petition. (Para 21) |
ORDER
This writ petition is preferred by the petitioners seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order passed by the Respondent No.1/Assistant Commissioner dated 27.2.2007 vide Annexure-M as well as the order passed by the Respondent No.10/ Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-N.
2. Heard learned counsel – Dr. Nanda Kishore for the petitioners; Sri Venkat Satyanarayan, learned HCGP for Respondent Nos.1,2 and 10; Sri Dhananjay Joshi, learned senior counsel on behalf of learned counsel - Sri Vigneswara .U for Respondent No.3; and Sri B.S. Raghu Prasad for Respondent Nos.5 to 9.
3. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel – Dr. Nanda Kishore appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners are the wife and son of one H. Krishnamurthy and the petitioners and their ancestors belong to "Adi Karnataka" caste, which is recognized as Scheduled Caste under the Constitution of India . Learned counsel further contends that Sri H. Krishnamurthy who is none other than husband of 1st petitioner and father of 2nd petitioner was granted 10 acres 30 guntas in waste land bearing Sy.No.133 of B.M. Kaval village, Bangalore South taluk, Bangalore district during 1941-42, which was confirmed vide grant order of the Government dated 21.3.1962. It is further contended that Sri H. Krishnamurthy was granted 3 acres and another 7 acres 30 guntas, in all totaling to 10 acres 30 guntas of land at an upset price of Rs.50/- per acre.
3.1 Learned counsel contends that pursuant to the grant in favour of H. Krishnamurthy, saguvali chit was issued as per No.LNO SR.1 188/61-62 and possession was delivered. Thereafter mutation was effected in the name of Sri H. Krishnamurthy pursuant to the issuance of saguvali chit and possession was also handed over and Sri H. Krishnamurthy was in possession and cultivating the land. It is also contended that revenue records such as record of rights, Tippani & Hissa survey Tippani extract etc., continued in the name of Sri H. Krishnamurthy.
3.2 Learned counsel contends that this being the state of affairs, Sri H. Krishnamurthy had approached the parents of respondents 4 to 9 for financial assistance as they were money lenders. Taking advantage of situation, the parents of respondents 4 to 9 got the sale deed executed in favour of Smt. Lada Devi Bachhawat to an extent of 3 acres in Sy.No.133 of B.M. Kaval village as security for the financial assistance. It is further contended that the said 3 acres of land formed part of 7 acres 30 guntas which was granted to Sri H. Krishnamurthy. Learned counsel contends that at no point of time the possession was ever delivered to the vendee Smt. Lada Devi Bachhawat by the vendor late Sri H. Krishnamurthy. The sale being nominal in nature, Sri H. Krishnamurthy continued to remain in peaceful possession of the above said 3 acres of land. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the said sale made in favour of Smt. Lada Devi Bachhawat is contrary to Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 {‘SC & ST (PTCL) Act’ for short} as no prior permission of the Government was obtained before the transfer and any sale/conveyance made is therefore null and void.
3.3 Learned counsel further contends that the legal representatives of Smt. Lada Devi Bachhawat thereafter effected sale of the very same property measuring 3 acres in favour of Respondent No.3/Sri Madanlal Bothra which again is contrary t
