Partly allowed

Sri P Gopal Reddy v. Smt Muniyamma

Karnataka HC23 Oct 2021WP/23792/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition filed by a petitioner challenging orders setting aside a land sale. Relying on a Full Bench judgment, the court held that converted land is not 'granted land'. The petition was allowed, impugned orders quashed, and the matter remitted to the Assistant Commissioner to determine if the property falls within the definition of granted land.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; impugned orders are quashed; matter remitted to respondent No.4 to determine if the property is 'granted land'.

Sri P Gopal Reddy Vs Smt Muniyamma — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK.S.KINAGI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.23792 OF 2015 (SC-ST)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

Sri. P.Gopal Reddy, S/o Late Kotilinga Reddy, Aged about 48 years, R/at No.951/3, 4th Main Road, Sadashivnagar, Bangalore-60080 … Petitioner

¶8

(By Sri Vasanthappa, Advocate)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Smt.Muniyamma, W/o Narayanappa, Aged about 45 years, D/o late Dodda Siddappa, Manchanabele Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chickaballapur-562101

¶11

Smt.Nanjamma, W/o Doddanarasappa, D/o Late Doddasiddappa, Aged about 44 years, Boyanahally Village, Mandical Hobli,

¶12

¶13

Chickaballapur-562101

¶14

Sri.Narayanamma, W/o Venkatakarayappa, D/o late Dodddasiddappa, Aged about 42 years, Maralakunte Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chickaballapur-562101

¶15

The Assistant Commissioner, Chickaballapur Sub-Division, Chickaballapur-562101

¶16

The Deputy Commissioner, Chickaballapur Sub-Division, Chickaballapur-562101

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

(By Sri Parashuram R Hattarakihal, Adv. for R1 & 3, R1 and R3 are LR's R2 v/o 6.3.2020 Sri.Sandesh Kumar, HCGP for R4 and R5)

¶19

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the records on the file of Assistant Commissioner, Chickballapur dtd. 18.03.2011 vide annexure-k and on the file of the Deputy Commissioner Dated 14.05.2014 vide Annexure-N and set aside the orders passed by the both the Court and etc.

¶20

This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in B group through this day, the Court made the following:

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 18.03.2011 passed by respondent No.4 and confirmed by

¶23

¶24

respondent No.5 vide order dated 14.05.2014, filed this writ petition.

¶25

Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition

¶26

are that:

¶27

Land in Sy.No.84/3 was granted in favour of Sri Doddasiddappa for an upset price measuring to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas situated at Agalagurki Village, Nandi Hobli, Chickaballapur Taluk dated 24.07.1972. The katha of the land was transferred in the name of Sri Doddasiddappa in the year 1982. On 01.12.1999, the Tahasildhar of Chikkaballapura Taluk has issued an endorsement stating that the condition of 15 years of nonalienation period is completed. The said Doddasiddappa died long back living behind respondent Nos.1 to 3 as his legal representatives. Sons of Sri Doddasiddappa, who inherited the property, executed a registered sale deed dated 28.06.2004 in favour of the petitioner. The concerned authorities have transferred the katha of the land in favour of the petitioner.

¶28

¶29

It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents being the daughters of Sri Doddasiddappa, who are no way concerned to the property. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have filed petition under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'PTCL Act') before respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 issued notice to the petitioner. After holding an enquiry, passed the final order by setting aside the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner and ordered to restore the property in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.4 preferred an appeal before respondent No.5. Respondent No.5, vide order dated 14.05.2014, confirmed the order passed by respondent No.4. The petitioner aggrieved by the orders passed by respondent Nos.4 and 5, filed this writ petition.

¶30

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶32

and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned HCGP.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that land in Sy.No.84/3 was converted into non-agricultural on 28.06.2004. He further submits that the petitioner has purchased the on 28.06.2004. The said land, on conversion, no longer remains 'granted land' hence provision of PTCL Act are not applicable. Hence, he further submits that the authorities have committed an error in entertaining the application filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3. He further places reliance upon the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in W.P.60483/2014 disposed of on 05.07.2021. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the petition and remit the matter back to respondent No.4.

¶34

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that the petitioner has not raised such ground before the Assistant Commissioner. He further submits that he has no objection to remand the matter to the

¶35

¶36

Assistant Commissioner. Hence, his submission is placed on record.

¶37

Heard and perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶38

It is not in dispute that the said land was granted in favour of Sri Doddasiddappa on 04.07.1973. The said land was converted into non-agricultural land on 28.06.2004. After converting such land from agricultural to non-agricultural, sons of Sri Doddasiddappa executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 28.06.2004. In view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court, wherein this Court has held that:

¶39

"(D) In the instant case, the statute namely PTCL, specifically provides that the permission for transfer/acquisition by transfer in respect of any granted land cannot be made except after obtaining prior approval of the Government. Thus, the transfer/acquisition by transfer in granted land has to be made in the manner prescribed under Section 4(2) of the Act i.e. the special enactment and an order of

¶40

¶41

conversion passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 95(2) of the Act granted to an occupant of the land to use the land for purposes other than agriculture, cannot be construed as fulfillment of requirement under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act. It is also noteworthy that competent authorities under both the provisions viz., Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act and under Section 95(2) of the Act are different, viz., the State Government and Deputy Commissioner respectively. The object and purpose of both the provisions contained in different enactment is entirely different. The scope of enquiry under both the provisions is entirely different. Both the aforesaid provisions operate in different fields. However, as we have already held that once the land is diverted, the same ceases to be a 'granted land' under the provisions of the PTCL Act. Therefore, in case of a diverted land, the requirement of obtaining the permission under Section 4(2) of the Act does not arise as the permission has to be obtained only in respect of 'granted land' and the land on conversion no longer remains 'granted land'. Therefore,

¶42

¶43

the issue whether an order of conversion passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 can be construed as prior permission by the Government satisfying the requirements under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act does not arise in case of diverted lands. The aforesaid issue is therefore, answered accordingly."

¶44

Therefore, in case of a diverted land, the requirement of obtaining the permission under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act does not arise as the permission has to be obtained only in respect of 'granted land' and the land on conversion no longer remains 'granted land'. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 that the petitioner has not raised such ground before the Assistant Commissioner. If the impugned orders are set aside and if the petitioner is permitted to raise aforesaid ground, no injustice would be caused to the parties.

¶45

¶46

The parties cannot be permitted to raise new ground in the writ petition. However, if the petitioner is permitted to raise the aforesaid ground before Assistant Commissioner, respondent Nos.1 to 3 will get an opportunity to effect the contention of the petitioner.

¶47

Hence, in view of the above discussion, also

¶48

law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court and concession made by the parties, I pass the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

i. Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside.

¶51

ii. The matter is remitted to respondent No.4. to determine whether the property in question falls within the definition of "granted land" as defined in Section 2(b) of the PTCL Act keeping in mind the judgment passed in the W.P.No.60483/2014 disposed of on 05.07.2021.

¶52

- 10 -

¶53

iii. The parties are directed to provide copy of judgment passed in W.P.No.60483/2014 to the Assistant Commissioner to enable him and to proceed in the same manner.

¶54

iv. The parties are directed to appear before respondent No.4 on 06.12.2021 without awaiting further notice.

¶55

v. Respondent No.4 is directed to dispose of the application within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶56

All the contentions of the parties of kept open.

¶57

This Court has not adjudicated merits in issue.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

ssb

Sri P Gopal Reddy v. Smt Muniyamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri P Gopal Reddy v. Smt Muniyamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.K.P.Srinivas Gowda Vs the Medical Council of India

Smt Lakkamma W/O Karihanumaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Rangamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Hanumantharaju D R Vs the State of Karnataka

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Rekha Jayaram

Mutthesha T P (A-3) Vs the State of Karnataka