ORDER

The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated

19.10.2016 vide Annexure-D passed by respondent No.3 and order of confirmation dated 15.11.2023 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-G, has filed the present writ petition.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:

The land bearing Sy.No.71 of Bidarehalla Kawal, Gubbi taluk was leased out to one Sannarangaiah S/o Durgaiah under 'Grow More Food' Scheme. After fulfilling the conditions of lease, the said lease was confirmed vide order dated 12.06.1952. The certificate of land was issued on 11.02.1994 confirming the lease. One Shanmukhappa father-in-law of the petitioner purchased subject land under a registered sale deed dated 10.09.1965 and his family members are in peaceful possession and cultivating the land as bonafide agriculturists till date. One Gangamma W/o Mariyappa, who is neither legal heir nor successor in interest submitted a petition under Section 5 of PTCL Act for resumption of land before the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 dismissed the application vide order dated 11.12.2019. Respondent No.4 has challenged the order passed by respondent No.3 before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by respondent No.3 and allowed the petition filed under Section 5 of PTCL Act and ordered to resumption of land vide order dated 15.11.2023. The petitioner aggrieved by the orders at Annexures-D and G, filed this writ petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Smt. Anukanksha Kulkeri, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Respondent No.4 served.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land granted under grow more food scheme will not fall within the definition of 'granted land'. He further submits that the issue involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court in W.P.No.12748/2011 in the case of NANJAMMA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA and others disposed of on 25.02.2022. He also submits that the said order was confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.339/2022 disposed of on 19.09.2022 and by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) DIARY NO.4777/2023 disposed of on 24.02.2023. Hence he submits that this writ petition may be allowed in terms of the aforesaid order.

5. Learned High Court Government Pleader does not dispute the same.

6. 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. 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 (referred supra) and the said order was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Dairy No.4777/2023. In view of the same, I concur with the findings recorded in the case of NANJAMMA (supra) and the said order is applicable to the present case in hand. The land granted on a lease in favour of Sannarangaiah S/o Durgaiah does not fall within the definition under Section 2(b) of PTCL Act. Applying the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have failed to consider the said aspect and proceeded to pass the impugned orders holding the land granted in favour of husband of respondent No.4 at an upset price falls within the definition of granted land. The impugned orders passed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are arbitrary and contrary to the law laid down by this Court.

8. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The writ petition is allowed.

Impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 are set aside. Consequently application filed under section 5 of PTCL Act is rejected.