Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 29861
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
K. Natarajan, J
Sri. Muniyappa S, S/O Late Chikkamunishamappa – Appellant
Versus
Sri. Kalappa S/O Late Muniyappa and Smt. Akkayamma – Respondent
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.746 OF 2025 | WRIT PETITION NO.19009 OF 2023
For the Appellants: Sri. T. R. Girish, Sri. Shivananada R
For the Respondents: Sri. G. Manivannan, Sri. Mithun G. A., Sri. B. S. Guruswamy
The court dismissed claims under the PTCL Act based on the historical context of land grants, asserting the lack of jurisdiction to overturn earlier administrative decisions.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition and Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 - The petitioners sought to quash orders rejecting their applications related to land alienation claims under PTCL Act, asserting especially scheduled caste rights. The court determined jurisdiction under pertinent governmental schemes and found sales not actionable under PTCL, emphasizing historical context and possession continuity. (Paras 4, 19, 20, 28)
(B) Legal Standing - The petitioners argued their father's mortgage did not confer rights to alienate claimed land; the court addressed the need for redemption suit rights against wrongful transfer entities. Land history and family inheritance were assessed, with a decision emphasizing adherence to legal and procedural norms. (Paras 10, 24, 29)
Facts of the case:
This case concerns land granted with a non-alienation clause under Scheduled Caste provisions, now contested due to alleged mishandling and past mortgages leading to conflicting property claims amid family disputes.
Findings of Court:
The initial administrative decisions against allowing claims were legally sound, with evidence supporting non-applicability of PTCL Act due to factual circumstances of land grant.
Issues: Whether the orders rejecting the application under the PTCL Act were justified and if there was a prima-facie case established for interim injunction against land alienation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that historical grant terms under governmental schemes satisfied legal conditions to dismiss claims based on PTCL Act. Validity of new sales was also questioned, given inherent restrictions based in family mortgage documentation.
Result: The MFA and Writ Petition were dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction of appeals and petitions under constitutional articles. (Para 1) |
| 2. land grant history and implications of mortgaging. (Para 11 , 12 , 18) |
| 3. rights to redemption of mortgage and implications. (Para 24) |
| 4. reaffirmation of mortgage rights versus non-alienation clauses. (Para 25 , 28) |
CAV JUDGMENT
The Writ Petition No.19009/2023 is filed by the petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order quashing the orders in the case of KSCST.No.78/2011-12 dated 22.12.2014, passed by the respondent No.2 and in the case of KSCST(A).No.132/2016-17 dated 23.06.2023, passed by the respondent No.1.
02. The MFA.No.746/2025 is filed by the appellants / defendants No.1 and 2 under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of CPC, praying to set aside the order dated 24.10.2024 on I.A.No.I, which is filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, in O.S.No.1068/2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli.
03. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, appellants and the respondents in both the cases.
04. The fact of the case in W.P.No.19009/2023 is that the petitioners are belongs to Scheduled Caste (Adi Dravida). The father of the petitioners No.1 and 2 viz., Sri. Chikkamunishamappa, was granted a land in new Sy.No.58 (Old No.10) measuring 03 acres 17 guntas situated at Sonnappanahalli village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North (Addl) Taluka, (hereinafter referred as ‘suit scheduled property’) with a condition imposed by the respondent No.3 not to alienate the property for 15 years. It is further contended that the late father of the petitioners was illiterate and his sons were also illiterate. They were working as coolie labourers under respondent No.3 – Smt. Muttamma. By taking undue advantage, the respondent No.3 – Smt. Muttamma got executed the mortgage deed in her favour on 03.06.1969. On the basis of the mortgage deed, she got the Khata transferred in her name. Later she got converted the land into Non- Agricultural land and sold to the father of the respondent No.4 viz., Gangaram under various sale deeds. The petitioners were in possession, the same was taken by them by force violating Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition and Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred as ‘PTCL Act’). Hence, the petitioners have filed a petition before the respondent No.2 in KSCST.No.78/2011-12, which came to be rejected on 22.12.2014. An appeal was filed before the respondent No.1 in KSCST(A).No.132/2016-17, which also came to be rejected by the respondent No.1, holding that the grant was not comes under the PTCL Act and passed the order.
05. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.
06. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners and their father were the members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Adi Dravida). On request before the Deputy Commissioner, the land in question was granted with a non-alienation clause of 15 years, but the same was ignored by both respondents No.1 and 2 and rejected the application holding that the land was granted under Grow More Food Scheme, which is not correct. Therefore, both the orders were under challenge, require for setting aside. Hence, prayed for allowing the petition.
07. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents No.1, 2 to 6 as well as Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents No.4 have objected the petition by supporting the order of the respondents No.1 and 2. They have contended that the land in question was granted to the father of the petitioners under the Grow More Food Scheme, but not under the PTCL Act. Therefore, question of challenging the sale deed and setting aside the sale deed by invoking the provisions of Section 5 of the PTCL Act, does not arises.
Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.
08. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1
