SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 39032

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

PRESENT

THE HON9BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON9BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY

W.A. NO.339 OF 2022 (SC/ST)

BETWEEN:

SRI. B. SHIVALINGAIAH

S/O LATE BORAIAH

AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS

R/AT. THORESTTAHALLI VILLAGE

MADDUR TALUK , MANDYA DISTRICT.

... APPELLANT

(BY SRI SWAMY N.B.N, ADV.,)

AND:

1.

SMT. NANJAMMA

W/O LATE RAJU

AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS.

2.

SRI SHIVALINGAIAH

S/O LATE RAJU

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

3.

SRI. PRAKASH

S/O LATE RAJU

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

ALL ARE R/AT.

THORESTTAHALLI VILLAGE

MADDUR TALUK

MANDYA DISTRICT.

2

4.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

REVENUE DEPARTMENT

M.S. BUILDINGS

DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD

BENGALURU - 560 001.

5.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

MANDYA DISTRICT

MANDYA - 571 401.

6.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

MANDYA SUB DIVISION

MANDYA - 571 401.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI Y.K. NARAYANA SHARMA, ADV., FOR R-1 TO R-3

SRI S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R-4 TO R-6)

- - -

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA

HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED

ON 25/02/2022 IN WP NO.12748/2011 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE

JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTIALLY RESTORE THE ORDERS PASSED

ON 28/09/2010 ANNEXURE-E OF WP BY THE RESPONDENT NO.5,

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA AS WELL

AS

THE

PASSED

ON

ORDER

ON

20/03/2009

IN

PTCL.NO.1/2002-03 ANNEXURE-D OF WP BY THE RESPONDENT

NO.6,

ASSISTANT

COMMISSIONER,

MANDYA

SUB-DIVISION,

MANDYA AND PASS SUCH FURTHER ORDER OR ORDERS.

THIS

WRIT

APPEAL

COMING

ON

FOR

PRELIMINARY

HEARING, THIS DAY, VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., DELIVERED THE

FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal has been filed challenging the

order dated 25.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge

of this Court in W.P.No.12748/2011.

3

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also

perused the material on record.

3. Facts leading to filing of this appeal are, land bearing

Sy. No.21 measuring 1 acre 5 guntas was granted on

temporary lease in favour of the father of the appellant herein

under the Grow More Food Scheme on 18.02.1946 and a

temporary saguvali chit was issued to him. On 30.07.1966,

35 guntas of land in Sy. No.21 was sold by the appellant's

father and the remaining 10 guntas of land was sold by him

under a registered sale deed dated 10.10.1967. In the year

1981, an application was filed by the appellant herein under

Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978

(for short, 'PTCL Act'), for resumption of the lands which were

sold under the sale deeds dated 30.07.1966 and 10.10.1967.

The

said

application

was

allowed

by

the

Assistant

Commissioner and confirmed in appeal by the Deputy

Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent nos.1

to 3 herein had filed W.P.No.23280/1991 which was

remanded by this Court for fresh disposal. On remand, the

4

Assistant Commissioner dismissed the application filed by the

appellant under Section 5 of the PTCL Act and as against the

said order, an appeal was filed by the appellant before the

Deputy Commissioner who allowed the said appeal on

21.06.2002 and remanded the matter to the Assistant

Commissioner for fresh disposal. The Assistant Commissioner,

thereafter, passed the order dated 20.03.2009 allowing the

application filed by the appellant herein under Section 5 of

the PTCL Act and the said order was challenged in appeal

before the Deputy Commissioner by respondent nos.1 to 3

herein who had confirmed the said order and as against the

same, W.P.No.12748/2011 was filed by respondent nos.1 to 3

herein which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide

the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the same, the

appellant who was respondent no.4 in the writ petition has

preferred this intra court appeal.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the

land in question was granted to the father of the appellant

who undisputedly belongs to Scheduled Caste, and therefore,

the learned Single Judge was not justified in allowing the writ

5

petition. He submits that the learned Single Judge has failed

to consider that the principles laid down in the judgment in

the case of PEDDA REDDY VS STATE OF KARNATAKA1 had not

been considered by the authorities, and therefore, he ought

to have remanded the matter for consideration of the

application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act in view of the law

laid down by this Court in Pedda Reddy's case supra.

5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents have

argued in support of the impugned order and have prayed to

dismiss the appeal.

6. The material on record would go to show that the

land in question was granted to the appellant's father under

the Grow More Food Scheme on 18.02.1946 and only a

temporary saguvali chit was therefore issued to him. For the

purpose of attracting the provisions of the PTCL Act, the land

in question is required to be a 'granted land' within the

meaning of Section 2(b) of the PTCL Act.

7. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of

MUNIRAJU & ORS VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS in

1 ILR 1993 KAR 551

6

W.A.Nos.4121-4134/2013 disposed of on 18.03.2015, has

observed as under:

"When the land is taken under 'Grow More Food

Scheme', the lessee is not required to pay rent or

lease for the first year and he was required to pay

half of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top