Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 42254
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. 14712 OF 2023 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SIDDAGANGAMMA W/O GANGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O MACHONAYAKANAHALLY VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561203 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA Digitally signed by R REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEEPA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, Location:
M.S. BUILDING, HIGH COURT OF BANGALORE-560001 KARNATAKA
2. THE TAHASILDAR NELAMANGALA TALUK, NELAMANGALA, BANGALORE-561203
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561203
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BEERASANDRA, DEVANAHALLI, 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. B H RAMESH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O HANUMAIAH, R/O HOUSE NO.44, 1ST CROSS, RENCHO LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA, BANGALORE-40 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.L. SREENIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-6 SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA FOR R1 TO R4 SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5 SRI. RAVI B. NAYAK, SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT. VIJETHA R. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNX-K THAT IS ORDER PASSED BY THE R-3 / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER IN CASE NO. PTCL (NE)14/2021 DTD 2-1- 2023 AND ORDER PASSED BY THE R-4 / DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN LND/SC/ST(A)12/2023 DTD 21.4.2023, VIDE ANNX-L, CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR RESTORATION OF GRANTED LAND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated
02.01.2023 passed by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-K and Annexure-L dated 21.04.2023 passed by respondent No.4, has filed the present writ petition.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ petition are as under:
The land in Sy.No.200 (old Sy.No.46/P10) measuring
2 acres situated at Obalapura village, Nelamangala taluk, was granted in favour of Bylaih S/o Huchaih and the said land was leased in favour of the petitioner's husband great grandfather under "Grow More Food" Scheme and later on as per the official memorandum lease was confirmed in favour of the original grantee by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore and grant certificate was issued to the grantee on 26.05.1966. The original grantee died leaving behind his legal representatives. After the demise of original grantee, the legal representatives sold the land in question in favour of respondent No.6 under a registered sale deed dated 11.03.2019. The land sold in favour of respondent No.6 is the subject matter of acquisition by respondent No.5. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 5 of PTCL Act in the year 2021, seeking restoration of land by declaring the sale deed as null and void. The Assistant Commissioner- respondent No.3 dismissed the petition. The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.3 preferred an appeal under Section 5(A) of PTCL Act before respondent No.4. The respondent No.4 dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by respondent No.3. The petitioner aggrieved by the orders passed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 vide Annexures-K and 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, Sri. P.V. Chandrashekar, learned counsel for respondent No.5, Sri. Ravi B. Naik, learned senior counsel for Smt. Vijetha R. Naik, learned counsel for respondent No.6.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in question was granted to Bylaih S/o Huchaih 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 are applicable to the case on hand. 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 orders passed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 are arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, on these grounds 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 a 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. 8. It is not in dispute that the land in question was leased 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 caste or depressed person. The issue involved in the instant writ petition is covered by the order of this Court in the case of NANJAMMA (referre
