- 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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.