Allowed

Sri P Jagadish v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Jul 2023WP/46702/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a purchaser. The court held that once agricultural land under the PTCL Act is converted for residential use, it falls outside the Act's purview. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner erred in ordering restoration of the land to the original grantee's family based on PTCL contravention.

What did the court decide?

The order of restoration passed by the Deputy Commissioner is set aside. Pending applications are disposed off.

Sri P Jagadish Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:23737 WP No. 46702 of 2019

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 46702 OF 2019 (SC-ST)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI P.JAGADISH S/O C PADMANABHAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT "NIRMALA MAHAL" AYYAPPA LAYOUT MALLASANDRA EXTENSION T.DASARAHALLI POST BENGALURU-560 057

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. ANANDA K, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DISTRICT K G ROAD BENGALURU-560009

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:23737 WP No. 46702 of 2019

¶19

KANDAYA BHAVAN, K G ROAD BENGALURU-560 009

¶20

SRI T K KEMPARAJU S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.846 L N COLONY, 6^TH MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 022

¶21

SRI MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE SHESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT KEREGUDDADAHALLI CHIKKABANAVARA POST YESHAWANTHAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R.1 TO R.3;

¶24

NOTICE TO R.4 IS D/W V/O/D 04.07.2023

¶25

SRI.P.N.NANJA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R.5)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.08.2019 PASSED IN APPEAL BY THE R-2 AT ANNEXURE-S IN RESPECT OF THE LAND IN SY.NO.9, NEW NO.9/7 MEASURING 1 ACRE, SITUATED AT MAYADARAHALLI VILLAGE, YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT AND DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE R-5 BEFORE THE R-2 AT ANNEXURE-N AND ETC.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2023:KHC:23737 WP No. 46702 of 2019

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The captioned writ petition is filed by a purchaser feeling aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner, who has allowed the appeal and consequently, has passed an order of restoration in favour of grantees' family on the ground the sale deed dated 30.12.2006 in favour of respondent No.4 and consequent sale deed executed by respondent No.4 in favour of petitioner on 17.06.2011 are in contravention of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short "PTCL Act").

¶32

The present case on hand clearly demonstrates the highhandedness on the part of the grantees family, who have succeeded in abusing the provisions of "PTCL Act". The subject matter of the petition land is an agricultural land bearing Sy. No.9, corresponding new

¶33

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:23737 WP No. 46702 of 2019

¶34

Sy. No.9/7 measuring 1 acre 3 guntas situated at Medarahalli Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. This is the second round of litigation. The grantees in the first round of litigation have succeeded in seeking restoration. Therefore, I deem it fit to refer to the alienations made by the original grantee before seeking restoration and alienations made after conversion of the petition land.

¶35

On examining Annexure-D, this Court would find that the Grant Certificate is issued under Form No.1. Perusal of the same, it would clearly reveal that one Ramavenkata participated in a public auction and has succeeded in bid and the Authorities have issued Grant Certificate under Form No.1. Before I proceed further, I deem it necessary to take cognizance of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.K.Muniraju vs. State of Karnataka¹ . The controversy as to whether Grant Certificate issued in Form No.1 is a title document is

¶36

1 (2008) 4 SCC 451

¶37

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:23737 WP No. 46702 of 2019

¶38

given a quietus by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under;

¶39

" 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."

¶40

Therefore, in the light of the law laid down by the

¶41

Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited judgment, it is quite disturbing to note that the original grantee at the first instance was not entitled to seek restoration. The original grantee, during his life time, has sold the petition land in

¶42

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:23737 WP No. 46702 of 2019

¶43

favour of one Paul Ambookar under the registered sale deed dated 01.09.1989 and the said Paul Ambookan, in turn, sold the petition land in favour of Smt.Ashwathamma under registered sale deed dated 23.02.1994. The original grantee sought restoration alleging that alienations are in contravention of the provisions of the "PTCL Act". The Authority has casually without examining the nature of grant allowed the petition and ordered for restoration and the sale deed in favour of Paul Ambookan and subsequent sale deed in favor of Smt.Ashwathamma are declared as null and void.

¶44

After restoration, the original grantee sought permission to convert the land to be used for residential purpose. The concerned Authority vide order dated 29.03.2004 vide Annexure-F passed conversion order. After conversion, the grantee executes GPA in favour of one C.Padmanabhaiah and GPA holder, in turn, sold the petition land to one Smt.Jyothi K under registered sale

¶45

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:23737 WP No. 46702 of 2019

¶46

deed dated 12.05.2004, which is registered on

¶47

29.05.2004.

¶48

Once there is a conversion order, the next question that arises for consideration before this Court is; as to whether the alienation of converted land can be the subject matter of the provisions of "PTCL Act"? The law in that regard is no more res-integra . The Full Bench while answering the reference in the case of SRI.MUNNAIAH AND OTHERS VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS in W.P.No.60483/2016 has held that in case of diverted land, the requirement of obtaining permission under Section 4(2) of the "PTCL Act" does not arise as the permission under the provisions of "PTCL Act" is mandatory only in respect of granted land. The Full Bench held that the land once converted, no longer remains as a granted land.

¶49

In the light of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the above cited judgment, the order of

¶50

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:23737 WP No. 46702 of 2019

¶51

restoration passed by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner is patently erroneous and one without jurisdiction. The legal heirs of original grantee claiming to be the legatees are not entitled to invoke the provisions of "PTCL Act". Respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner cannot exercise jurisdiction under the provisions of "PTCL Act" and should not have exercised jurisdiction under the provisions of "PTCL Act". As on the date of submitting petition under Sections 4 and 5 of "PTCL Act", the land in question was converted and therefore, on account of conversion, the land is taken out of purview of provisions of "PTCL Act".

¶52

Respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner vide

¶53

impugned order dated 16.08.2019 has ordered for restoration and while doing so, has exceeded in his jurisdiction. As the land in question is converted, the Authorities have no power to hold an enquiry under the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of "PTCL Act". If respondent No.5 is asserting to be legatee under the

¶54

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:23737 WP No. 46702 of 2019

¶55

original grantee, the testamentary arrangement made by the original grantee and the claim of respondent No.5 is of no consequence. Post conversion under duly authorized agent, the original grantee has meddled with the property and has sold the petition land. All these disputed question of facts cannot be the subject matter of the PTCL proceedings. Remedy, if any, for respondent No.5 is to approach the Competent Civil Court and question the sale deeds. Respondent No.5 till this date has not challenged the alienations made by the grantee through an authorized agent.

¶56

Though grantee through GPA alienated the land in favour of one K.Jyothi under registered sale deed dated 12.05.2004, which is registered on 29.05.2004, the original grantee secures cancellation deed and thereafter, along with his wife, has alienated in favour of respondent No.4 under registered sale deed dated 30.12.2006 and respondent No.4, in turn, sold the land in question in favour of petitioner under registered sale deed dated

¶57

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:23737 WP No. 46702 of 2019

¶58

17.06.2011. If original grantee along with wife has alienated the petition land on 30.12.2006, the alleged testamentary arrangement made by the original grantee in favour of respondent No.5 is of no consequence. The sale deed dated 30.12.2006 is not challenged by anybody till this date. Therefore, the entire exercise undertaken by the Authorities in examining as to whether there is a contravention of the provisions of "PTCL Act" is based on misconceived notion. Respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner has not taken cognizance of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the judgment cited supra.

¶59

Respondent No.5 could not have maintained a petition based on the Will. The remedy, if any, is to challenge the sale deeds. It is open for respondent No.5 to approach the competent Civil Court.

¶60