Dismissed

Sakramma D/O Late Umpleppa Alias Humelappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Sept 2023WA/100315/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged a Single Judge's order quashing a land transfer. The Bench held that the 'Saguvali Chit' evidenced a sale auction, not a government grant. Consequently, the PTCL Act was not attracted, and the Single Judge's order dismissing the resumption application was valid.

What did the court decide?

Appeal against the Single Judge's order dismissing the writ petition is dismissed.

Sakramma D/O Late Umpleppa Alias Humelappa Vs State of… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10217-DB WA No. 100315 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA WRIT APPEAL NO. 100315 OF 2023 (SCST)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SAKRAMMA D/O. LATE UMPLEPPA @ HUMELAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, SANGAPUR-583227,

¶10

TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADV.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

ROHAN HADIMANI T

¶16

Digitally signed by ROHAN HADIMANI T Date: 2023.09.16 11:01:47 +0530

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL DISTRICT KOPPAL-583201.

¶18

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL, TALUK AND DISTRICT KOPPAL-583201.

¶19

THE TAHASILDAR GANGAVATHI TALUKA, GANGAVATHI-583201, DISTRICT: KOPPAL.

¶20

ANTEM NAGESHWAR S/O. GOPALKRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE

¶21

¶22

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10217-DB WA No. 100315 of 2023

¶23

R/O: H.NO.118, 1ST WARD SANGAPUR-583227, TALUKA: GANGAVATHI, DISTRICT: KOPPAL.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI A.S. PATIL, ADV. FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT NO.5) (BY SRI G. K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4)

¶26

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1960, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 10-11-2022 IN W.P.NO.100082/2021 (SC ST) IN ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 17-12-2020 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2.

¶27

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, KRISHNA KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

This intra Court appeal is directed against the impugned

¶30

order dated 10.11.2022 passed in Writ Petition No.100082/2021, whereby the said petition filed by the respondent No.5-writ petitioner was allowed by the learned Single Judge.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for appellant-respondent No.5 and learned counsel Sri A.S.Patil appearing for caveatorrespondent No.5-writ petitioner as well as learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶32

- 3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10217-DB WA No. 100315 of 2023

¶33

The material on record discloses that the subject land bearing Survey No.26/1 measuring 04 acre 02 guntas situated at Sangapura village of Gangavathi Taluka was granted in favour of late Sri Umleppa @ Hemleppa S/o.Khemappa Lamani, the father of appellant herein vide ‘Saguvali Chit’ dated 25.11.1971. On 01.01.1979, the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, ‘the PTCL Act’) came into force, under which, Section 4 prohibited sale of the subject land without previous permission of the State Government. On 17.09.2004, the appellant’s father sold 02 acre out of total extent of 4 acre in favour of respondent No.5, subsequently, on 24.09.2016, the appellant filed an application before the 3^rd respondent seeking restoration of the subject land on the ground that sale was in violation of provisions of the PTCL Act since no prior and previous permission has been obtained from the State Government. The said application having been dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner and which was reversed by the Deputy Commissioner, who allowed the application, the 5^th respondent approached this Court in Writ Petition No.100082/2021 (SC/ST), the said petition having been contested by the

¶34

- 4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10217-DB WA No. 100315 of 2023

¶35

appellant herein, the learned Single Judge proceeded to allow the petition inter alia holding that there was no reasonable and un-explained delay in instituting the said proceedings. In addition thereto, the learned Single Judge examined the ‘Saguvali Chit’ dated 25.11.1971 in order to come to the conclusion that the subject land was not a granted land within the meaning of Section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act and same has been sold in favour of the appellant’s father and subsequently in the light of Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B.K.Muniraju vs. State of Karnataka and Others , reported in

¶36

AIR 2008 SC 1438 , the order of the Deputy Commissioner allowing application filed by the applicant was incorrect and her application seeking resumption of the subject land was liable to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned Single judge, the appellant is before this Court by way of the present appeal.

¶37

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the appeal and referring to the material on record, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the ‘Saguvali Chit’ indicated that the subject land was granted land within the meaning of Section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act and as such, the

¶38

- 5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10217-DB WA No. 100315 of 2023

¶39

ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B.K.Muniraju’s case was not applicable to the facts of the instant application. It was also contended that by virtue of the amendment to Section 5 of the PTCL Act by insertion of Clauses C and D to sub-section 1 of Section 5 with effect from 27.07.2023 the limitation of time to invoke the provisions of the Act has been removed with retrospective as well retroactive effect as can be seen from the said provisions and the learned Single Judge committed an error in allowing the petition by passing the impugned order, which deserves to be set aside.

¶40

Per Contra , the learned counsel for respondent No.5 would support the impugned order and submit that there is no merit in the appeal and same is liable to be dismissed.

¶41

We have given careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

¶42

A perusal of the ‘Saguvali Chit’ dated 25.11.1971 marked as Annexure-B to the petition will clearly indicate that the same is not a granted land within the meaning of Section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act inasmuch as the said document discloses that the subject land had been sold in favour of the appellant’s father in a public auction for a price of Rs.83.25.

¶43

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10217-DB WA No. 100315 of 2023

¶44

The said document i.e., ‘Sanguvali Chit’ also discloses that the bar for alienation as stipulated in Clause 7 of the said document was only for a period of 15 years from the date of taking possession i.e., 15 years from 26.10.1971, which undisputedly expired on 25.10.1986. In the instant case, it is seen that the subject land was alienated only on 17.09.2004 after expiry of the non-alienation period. It is also relevant to state that the learned Single Judge has come to the correct conclusion that the ‘Saguvali Chit’ at Annexure-B is sale transaction, whereby the appellant’s father purchased the subject land in a public auction and the same cannot be treated or construed as grant of land in favour of depressed classes to which appellant and her father allegedly belonged to. In B.K.Muniraju’s case, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under :

¶45

“17. In the case of Banwasi Sewa Ashram (Supra), wherein certain Adivasi communities inhabiting the situate land were being evicted from their homes on grounds of the said land being subject to a Section 4 notification under the Forest Act, this Court held that the said inhabitants had a right for their claims to be heard by the Forest Officer, and it was the forest officer, who had the power to go into the merits of the case and decide the claims of the inhabitants.

¶46

The abovementioned Banwasi Sewa Judgment (Supra), when read into detail, would show that it confers upon the inhabitants of the subject land, only a procedural right to be

¶47

¶48

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10217-DB WA No. 100315 of 2023

¶49

heard by the appropriate authority, and not a substantive right of possession/inhabitation of the land. In simpler terms, this would mean that this Court, while delivering the said judgment, did not go into the merits of each claim but only provided an appropriate forum for the claims to be heard.

¶50

The object of such judgment, in our opinion, is to further the cause of substantive justice, and to ensure that every party with a valid claim over the notified land is heard in detail, and no arbitrary power to evict local inhabitants is given to the state.

¶51

It must be noted that forest communities do not only consist of people from recognized Adivasi and other backward communities, but also other groups residing in the said land. These other groups, who do not get recognition under the law as a forest dwelling community due to several socio-political and economic reasons, are also an integral part of the said forest communities and are essential to their functioning. Further, there can also be several instances of people ancestrally being forest dwellers, however, due to lack of documentation, are not able to prove the same.”

¶52

As can be seen from the ratio laid down by the

¶53

Hon’ble Apex Court in B.M.Muniraju’ case supra, the documents styled as ‘Saguvali Chit’ in the instant case also cannot be treated as conveying title in respect of granted land within the meaning of Section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act, and the learned Single Judge was fully justified in coming to the correct conclusion that the subject land was not granted land so as to attract the provision of the PTCL

¶54

8 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10217-DB WA No. 100315 of 2023

¶55

Act. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge warranting interference by this Court in the present appeal.

¶56

Insofar as the contention of learned counsel for

¶57

the appellant regarding amendment to Section 5(1) of the PTCL Act by insertion of sub-clauses C and D after the clause 1 of Section 5 is concerned, in view of above finding that the subject land was not a granted land, we do not find it necessary to advert to the aforesaid amendment or its applicability in the present case and the said question is left open to be decided in an appropriate case. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal and same is

hereby dismissed.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

CKK

LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 18

Sakramma D/O Late Umpleppa Alias Humelappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sakramma D/O Late Umpleppa Alias Humelappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivayogi Urf Shrishail S/O. Shivaputrappa Katti, Occ. Agriculture Vs Dr. Krishnamurthy, Age Major

Sri S S Jadhav S/O Sadashiva (Shivaji Sadashiv Jadhav ) Vs the Inspector General of Police (Igp)

The State of Karnataka Vs S.M. Basanagoudar S/O Murigeppagoudar

Govindraj S/O Putopanth Kulkarni Vs Ismail S/O Rashid Sait

Ramappa S/O Gurappa Lamani Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Honnappa S/O Guddappa Karakappanavar Vs Smt Sarojini W/O Honnappa Karakappanavar