High Court of Karnataka quashed concurrent orders quashing land sales. The court held that a grant certificate under Form 1 did not make the land 'granted land' under state law and lacked jurisdiction without substantial documentary proof.
Orders of restoration passed by Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner are set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2023:KHC:23049 WP No. 19402 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 19402 OF 2021 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka
1(F). MRS. SHOBA, W/O K R SURESH, M KAGEPURA VILLAGE, KIRUGAVALU HOBLI, MALAVALI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 424.
1(A) IS WIFE AND 1(B) TO (F) ARE CHILDREN OF LATE THIMME GOWDA, PETITIONER 1(A), 1(C) AND 1 (E) ARE RESIDING AT: YEDAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, C A KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 422.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K V SHYAMAPRASADA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
NC: 2023:KHC:23049 WP No. 19402 of 2021
MADDUR TALUK - 571 422.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. HARI PRASAD M B, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTION BY QUASHING OR ORDER PASSED IN ANNEXURE-H BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT DATED 20.10.2020 PASSED IN PTCL 10/2015 AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the purchaser
feeling aggrieved by the concurrent orders of the authorities, who have ordered for restoration of the land by annulling the sales in favour of petitioner's father dated 29.11.2004, 26.07.2004 and 29.04.2004.
of provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands)
NC: 2023:KHC:23049 WP No. 19402 of 2021
Act, 1978, (for short "PTCL Act") alleging that alienations are also in violation of Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act.
NC: 2023:KHC:23049 WP No. 19402 of 2021
counsel for the petitioner or the learned High Court Government Pleader. On perusal of the grant certificate, I am of the view that the provisions of the PTCL Act are not applicable to the present case on hand. On perusal of the grant certificate, I would find that the grandfather of respondent No.3, namely, Chikka Siddaiah, had participated in a public auction and had purchased the petition land by depositing the auction price of Rs.2024/-. Admittedly, the authorities have issued a grant certificate under Form No.1.
1 (2008) 4 SCC 451
NC: 2023:KHC:23049 WP No. 19402 of 2021
mainly because a document is styled as a certificate of grant, that in itself will not lead to an inference that the grant was intended for a depressed class. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.K.Muniraju held as under:
" The document in question has been styled as "certificate of grant". In order to know the real nature of the document, one has to look into the recitals of the document and not the title of the document. The intention is to be gathered from recitals in the deed, conduct of the parties and evidence on record. It is settled law that question of construction of a document is to be decided by finding out intention of the executant, firstly, from a comprehensive reading of the terms of the document itself, and then, by looking into, to the extent permissible, the prevailing circumstances which persuaded the author of the document to execute it. With a view to ascertain the nature of a transaction, the document has to be read as a whole. A sentence or term used may not be determinative of real nature of transaction."
NC: 2023:KHC:23049 WP No. 19402 of 2021
jurisdiction to hold an enquiry under the provisions of the PTCL Act. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment cited supra, though the document is styled as a grant certificate, the fact that it is issued under Form No.1 means that it has to be treated as a title document. The grandfather of respondent No.3 had in fact
purchased the land by depositing the auction price. Therefore, it is an outright sale, merely because the document is styled as a grant certificate, which in itself will not lead to the inference that the land in question is granted land as defined under Section 3(e) of the PTCL Act. Therefore, in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment cited supra, respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain the restoration petition in the present case on hand. Therefore, he should not have exercised jurisdiction. The order of restoration is one without authority and jurisdiction, and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside by this Court.
absence of documents to substantiate that the land in question is 'granted land', has superficially allowed the petition and ordered for restoration. Respondent No.2/Assisant Commissioner has not even taken pains to find out the nature of the grant. Respondent No.3 though
has not placed any documents, has for the first time produced a Xerox copy of the grant certificate issued under Form No.1. If the claim made by respondent No.3 was not substantiated by even producing a single document to indicate that the land in question is granted
land, even otherwise, respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner and respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner, ought to have rejected the petition only on that ground. The order of restoration passed by respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner is not supported by any valid reasons. The findings that the land in question is granted land recorded by the respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner is not supported by any material on record, even on this count. The order passed
by the respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner and the
order passed by the respondent No.1/Deputy
Commissioner suffer from serious illegality and are therefore liable to be quashed even on this count.
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed;
(ii) The order passed by the respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-H and the order passed by the respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner vide AnnexureE are hereby set aside.
Sd/JUDGE
hdk
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands Act apply to the land in question which was purchased at public auction.
Whether the Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to entertain the restoration petition when the nature of the grant was not substantiated by valid documents.
Whether the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner to restore the land is liable to be set aside for lack of authority and jurisdiction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.K. Muniraju vs State of KarnatakaRelied on¶45
B.K.Muniraju .vs. State of Karnataka; (1 & 2008) 4 SCC 451 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 3 enactments
P THIMMEGOWDA LRS
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANDYA
MR Y S JAGADISH
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
