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

- 1 -

WA No. 100021 of 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV

AND

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

WRIT APPEAL NO. 100021 OF 2015 (SC/ST)

BETWEEN:

1.

SMT.NEELAVVA W/O.VASANTH

@ YESHWANTHAPPA KALE

SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS

SATHVEERAPPA S/O VASANTH @ YESHWANTHAPPA KALE

AGE: 60 YEARS,

R/O.NEAR CHURCH

RANEBENNUR TALUK

HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI.

2.

SHIVARUDRAPPA S/O VASANTH @ YESHWANTHAPPA

KALE

AGE: 53 YEARS,

R/O. RANEBENNUR TALUK, HAVERI,

HAVERI DIST

3.

ANANDAPPA S/O VASANTH @ YESHWANTHAPPA KALE

AGE: 50 YEARS,

RANEBENNUR TALUK,

HAVERI, HAVERI DIST

4.

PRAKASH S/O VASANTH @ YESHWANTHAPPA KALE

AGE: 47 YEARS,

RANEBENNUR TALUK, HAVERI,

DIST: HAVERI

5.

SHARADAVVA D/O VASANTH @ YESHWANTHAPPA KALE

AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WORK, R/O. RANEBENNUR

TALUK, HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI

MOHANKUMAR

B SHELAR

Digitally signed

by

MOHANKUMAR

B SHELAR

Date:

2022.10.22

10:39:50 +0530

- 2 -

WA No. 100021 of 2015

6.

NIRAMLA D/O VASANTH @ YESHWANTHAPPA KALE

AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. RANEBENNUR

TALUK, HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI

7.

SHASHIKALA D/O VASANTH @ YESHWANTHAPPA KALE

AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WORK, R/O. RANEBENNUR

TALUK, HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.RAVI S.BALIKAI, ADV.)

AND:

1.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

HAVERI DISTRICT

HAVERI

2.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

HAVERI, DIST HAVERI

3.

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR

MEDLERI VILLAGE, TALUK RANEBENNUR DIST: HAVERI

4.

CHIKKAPPA S/O SANNANINGAPPA GONNER

AGE: 78 YEARS,

OCC: AGRICULTURE,

R/O.MEDLERI VILLAGE,

TALUKA RANBENNUR,

DISTRICT.HAVERI.

5.

NINGAPPA S/O.DODDAPPA HONNATHI

AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT

MEDLERI VILLAGE, TALUK RANEBENNUR DIST: HAVERI

6.

NAGAPPA S/O.DODDAPPA HONNATHI

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

OCC: AGRICULTURE,

R/O. MEDLERI VILLAGE,

TALUK RANEBENNUR DIST: HAVERI

- 3 -

WA No. 100021 of 2015

7.

HONNESHAPPA S/O.BHIMAPPA GANGOCHI

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

SMT.GANGAMMA W/O.HONNESHAPPA GANGOCHI

AGE: 76 YEARS

OCC: HOUSE WORK,

R/O. MEDLERI VILLAGE, TALUK RANEBENNUR DIST:

HAVERI

8.

SUBHAS S/O.HONNESHAPPA GANGOCHI

AGE 51 YEARS

OCC: AGRICULTURE,

R/AT MEDLERI VILLAGE, TALUK RANEBENNUR DIST:

HAVERI

9.

SHRI.BHIMAPPA S/O.HONNESHAPPA GANGOCHI,

AGE: 49 YEARS

OCC: AGRICULTURE,

R/O.MEDLERI VILLAGE,

TALUK:RANEBENNUR

DIST: HAVERI.

10. SHRI.HONNAPPA S/O.HONNESHAPPA GANGOCHI

AGE: 47 YEARS,

OCC: AGRICULTURE

R/O.MEDLERI VILLAGE

TALUK RANBENNUR

DIST: HAVERI.

11. SMT.DURGAVVA W/O.LAKAMAPPA BADAPPALAVAR

AGE:57 YEARS,

OCC:AGRICULTURE,

R/AT MEDLERI VILLAGE,

TALUK RANEBENNUR,

DIST HAVERI

12. SMT.RATANAVVA W/O.B.S.KARIBASAPPA

AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,

R/O.KUNCBELAKERE, TALUKA

HARIHAR, DIST: DAVANGERE.

- 4 -

WA No. 100021 of 2015

13. SMT.CHAMPAKKA W/O.B.S.HONNAPPA

AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

R/O.HARIHAR,

TALUKA HARIHAR,

DIST: DAVANGERE.

14. MARUTI S/O SIDDAPPA PUJAR

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

OCC:AGRICULTURE,

R/AT MEDLERI VILLAGE,

TALUK RANEBENNUR,

DIST HAVERI

15. SIDDAPPA S/O BARMAPPA VYAPARI

AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,

OCC:AGRICULTURE,

R/AT MEDLERI VILLAGE,

TALUK RANEBENNUR,

DIST HAVERI

16. GANGADHARAPPA

S/O NEELAPPA KODLIAVAR

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

OCC:AGRICULTURE,

R/AT MEDLERI VILLAGE,

TALUK RANEBENNUR,

DIST HAVERI

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1-R3.,

SRI.AVINASH BANAKAR, ADV. FOR R4 TO R6, R9, R10& R14 TO R16,

R7, R8, R11 TO R13 SERVED)

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

COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN

WRIT PETITION NO.14199/2005 DATED 17.09.2014.

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS

DAY, S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

- 5 -

WA No. 100021 of 2015

This appeal is preferred against the order passed in

W.P.No.14199/2005 dated 17.09.2014.

The parties are referred to by their ranks in the

writ petition.

The writ petition was filed assailing the order

dated 21.04.2005 passed by the Deputy Commissioner,

Haveri District, who has confirmed the order passed by the

Assistant Commissioner, Haveri on 05.05.2003. The order

of the Assistant Commissioner was passed under the

provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands)

Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PTCL Act’ for

short) whereby the Assistant Commissioner allowed the

application seeking to restore the lands holding that the

same as in violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act. The said

order

came

to

be

challenged

before

the

Deputy

Commissioner by way of an appeal, which came to be

dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, writ petition in

- 6 -

W.P.No.14199/2005 came to be filed, which was disposed

off on 17.09.2014 whereby the writ petition was allowed

and the impugned orders were set aside.

It must be noted here that the subject matter

of the proceedings was Sy.No.45 measuring 3 acres 8

guntas and Sy.No.46 measuring 28 acres 14 guntas

situated at Medleri village, Ranebennur Taluk, Haveri

District. Insofar as Sy.No.45 is concerned, the said lands

were tenanted lands and occupancy rights were granted

by the Land Tribunal on 13.01.1977 to one Siddappa

Pujar, which order has attained finality.

Insofar as Sy.No.46 is concerned, the said land

was re-granted under the provisions of Karnataka Village

Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the

‘KVOA Act’ for short) and came to be sold in various

parcels on 01.08.1966 (8 acres); 10.08.1966 (3 acres);

30.10.1968 (6 acres); 14.08.1979 (4.05 acres) and

07.11.1970 (4 acres). The sale transactions were in favour

- 7 -

of the petitioners by the father of respondent Nos.4 to 10

namely, Vasant Kale.

The

learned

single

Judge

after

detailed

consideration has held that lands in Sy.Nos.45 and 46 do

not come within the purview of granted lands and hence,

the provisions of PTCL Act does not apply. It is noticed

that, insofar as Sy.No.45 is concerned, occupancy rights

were granted under the provisions of the Land Reforms

Act

and

the

learned

single

Judge

after

detailed

consideration held

that tenancy rights by

way of

occupancy rights does not come within the provisions of

granted lands and accordingly, is not hit by the embargo

of the PTCL Act. It was held that, the Land Tribunal

granted occupancy rights under the provisions of the Land

Reforms Act and such an order cannot be constructed to

be a ‘transfer’ within the meaning of the PTCL Act.

Insofar as Sy.No.46 is concerned, it has been

held that PTCL Act, excludes grant of land related to

- 8 -

hereditary offices or rights in the light of the special

enactment that takes care of such lands namely KOVA Act.

Insofar as survey No.45 is concerned, the

occupancy

rights

have

been

granted

which

is

a

declaration of a pre-existing right and such conferment of

occupancy rights do not fall within the ambit of granted

lands under the PTCL Act. This is also the position of law

as declared in the case of Mohammed Jaffar and

another Vs. State of Karnataka reported in ILR 2002

KAR. 4693. Insofar as survey No.46 is concerned, the

very definition of granted land under the PTCL Act

excludes lands related to hereditary offices.

The

learned

single

Judge

after

detailed

consideration of the provisions of the KVOA Act and

referring to the judgment in the case of Syed Basheer

Ahamed v. State of Karnataka [ILR 1994 Kar.159] as

well as the judgment in the case of Lakshmana Gowda

v. State of Karnataka [(1981) 1 KLJ 1] has come to

the conclusion that insofar as alienations made between

- 9 -

01.02.1963 to 07.08.1978, the same would be valid and

the permission of the Deputy Commissioner was only a

formality. After recording a finding that alienations are

made within the period of 01.02.1963 to 07.08.

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top