Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 43991
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 15152 OF 2023 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
HANUMANTHARAJU T S/O THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O KODIGEHALLI DAKKLE, VADDARAPALYA VILLAGE, TYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561203 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA Digitally signed REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, by R DEEPA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, Location: HIGH M.S.BUILDING COURT OF BANGALORE - 560001.
KARNATAKA
2. THE TAHASILDAR, NELAMANGALA TALUK, NALEMANGALA, BANGALORE - 561203.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561203.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BEERASANDRA, DEVANHALLI, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE - 562123.
5. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.12, SHANTHIGRUHA, BHARATH SCOUTS AND GUIDE BUILDING
4TH FLOOR, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE - 01
6. KRISHNAMURTHY M S/O MAYANNA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT NO.E-204, MANTRI TERRACE, BELLEKALLI, BANNERUGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 76.
(BY SRI. K.L. SREENIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-6 SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA FOR R1 TO R4 SMT. SHISHIRA AMARNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R5 SRI. RAVI B. NAYAK, SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT. VIJETHA R. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ANNX-L THAT IS ORDER DATED 29.5.2023 AND ORDER PASSED BY THE R-4 /DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN LND/SC/ST(A) 44/2022 DTD 29.5.2023, CONSEQUENTLY CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER IN PTCL.SR(NE) 13/2007-08 AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR RESTORATION OF GRANTED LAND IN HIS FAVOUR.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated
29.05.2023 vide Annexure-L passed by respondent No.4, has filed the present writ petition.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:
The petitioner belongs to backward community. The grandfather of the petitioner Hanumantha S/o Thimmaiah was the original grantee of darkasth land bearing in Sy.No.213 (old Sy.No.46/P18) measuring 2 acres situated at Obalapura village, Nelamangala Taluk. The said land was leased to the petitioner's great grandfather under "Grow More Food" Scheme. Later on, as per the official memorandum lease was confirmed in favour of the original grantee by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru. After paying an upset price, grant certificate was issued to the original grantee on 10.05.1963 by the Tahsildar. The original grantee died and after his demise, the property was mutated in the name of his son Thimmaiah i.e., father of the petitioner and the legal representatives of Hanumantha executed registered GPA in favour of B.T.Hanumanthraju on 06.10.2005. The said GPA holder executed registered sale deed in favour of M.Krishnamurthy i.e., respondent No.6 on 19.11.2005 by violating the conditions of grant and also the provision of PTCL Act. The land in question was acquired by respondent No.5. The petitioner filed a petition under PTCL Act before respondent No.3 alleging that the sale transaction is in contravention of provision of PTCL Act. The respondent No.3 allowed the petition vide annexure-K. The respondent No.6 aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.3 filed an appeal before the respondent No.4. The respondent No.4 vide order dated 29.05.2023 allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the respondent No.3. The petitioner aggrieved by the order vide Annexure-L, has filed this writ petition.
3. Heard Sri. Girish B. Baladare, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri. K.L Sreenivas, learned counsel for C/respondent No.6, Smt.Namitha Mahesh, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4, Smt. Shishira Amarnath, learned counsel for respondent No.5, Sri. Ravi B. Naik, learned senior counsel for Smt. Vijetha R. Naik, counsel for respondent No.6.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in question was granted to Hanumantha S/o Thimmaiah, as he belongs to depressed class under 'Grow More Food' Scheme. The sale transaction is in violation of conditions of grant and provisions of PTCL Act. The said aspect was not considered by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and proceeded to pass the impugned orders. He further submits that the impugned order passed by respondent No.4 is arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, on these grounds he prays to allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra, Sri. Ravi B Naik, learned senior counsel for respondent No.6 submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court in W.P.No.12748/2011 disposed of on
25.02.2022 in the case of NANJAMMA AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS. He submits that the land granted on lease under Grow More Food Scheme does not fall within the definition of 'granted land'. He submits that admittedly in the instant case the land in question was granted under Grow More Food Scheme. The said aspect was rightly considered by respondent Nos.3 and 4 and passed impugned orders. Hence he prays to dismiss the writ petition.
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate supports the impugned orders and prays to dismiss the writ petition.
7. Perused the records and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. It is not in dispute that the land in question was taken under 'Grow More Food' Scheme and thereafter the said lease was confirmed in favour of a grantee at an upset price of Rs.100/- per acre as per Annexure-A and certificate was issued as per Annexure-B. The land taken on lease under Grow More Food Scheme cannot be considered as a 'granted land' to him considering him as a schedule cast
