Allowed

Sri. N. Babu Reddy v. Karnataka State Commission Schedule Caste

Karnataka HC29 Mar 2023WP/48252/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition filing under Articles 226 and 227, quashing an order of the Karnataka State Commission that directed revenue authorities to effect mutation in favour of a respondent in a disputed land matter, held to be beyond the Commission's jurisdiction under the SC & ST Act.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 22.03.2018 by the Commission directing the Tahasildar to effect mutation in favour of respondent no.4 was quashed.

Sri. N. Babu Reddy Vs Karnataka State Commission Schedule… — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 48252 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO.48252 OF 2018 (GM-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. N. BABU REDDY S/O LATE H. M. NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶7

SRI. N. ASHOK REDDY, S/O. LATE H. M. NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶8

SRI. N. VENKATESH REDDY, S/O. LATE H. M. NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶9

SRI. MOHAN, S/O. LATE RAMACHANDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶10

SMT. GEETHA, W/O. LATE RAMACHANDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶11

Digitally signed by GURURAJ D Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

ALL ARE R/AT DODDAMMA DEVI TEMPLE STREET OFF BANNERAGHATTA ROAD, HULIMAVU VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 076.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. ASHOK B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION, SCHEDULE CASTE AND SCHEDULE TRIBE CELL, NO.14/3, 2^ND FLOOR, C.F.C. BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA RAOD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶17

¶18

WP No. 48252 of 2018

¶19

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 002.

¶20

THE TAHASILDAR, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 002.

¶21

SHRI. H.Y. YADAV, S/O. LATE YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O. 156/F6/18, NO.19, (III FLOOR), DOOR NO. 6, HULIMAVU VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 076.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. V. SHIVA REDDY, HCGP FOR R2 & R3; SRI. A.C. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. BOPANNA B., ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.3.2018 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES COMMISSION BANGALORE IN CASE NO. 294/2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-R ALLOWING THE PETITION OF R-4, AND THEREBY DIRECTING THE R-3 TO EFFECT REVENUE ENTRIES IN THE NAME OF THE R-4.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B-GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

¶27

WP No. 48252 of 2018

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Challenging directions issued by respondent no.1 -

¶30

Commission by its order dated 22.03.2018 in Case no.294/2016 at Annexure-R, this petition is filed.

¶31

Sri Ashok B Patil, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners' father Sri H.M.Narayana Reddy purchased extent of 22 guntas in land bearing Sy.no.85/2, situated at Hulimavu village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, under sale deed dated 11.12.1967 from Sri Nanjappa S/o Pillathotiga and Muniyapppa S/o Nanjappa. Likewise, under another sale deed dated 13.03.1968 executed by Muniyappa S/o Sakarappa and sons of Muniyappa, Ramakrishna, Muniyallappa, Sampangi and Chandra another extent of 25 guntas and another 07 guntas under sale deed dated 18.07.1969, executed by Muniyappa S/o Sakarappa in Sy.no.85/2 were also purchased.

¶32

Thereafter, under affirmation deed dated 24.06.1971, there was affirmation of earlier sale deeds. However, by order dated 12.12.1982, Tahasildar, Bangalore South Taluk directed eviction of petitioners' father from said land in suo-moto proceedings purportedly initiated under Section 5 of Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961.

¶33

¶34

WP No. 48252 of 2018

¶35

Said order was challenged by Sri H.M.Narayana Reddy in W.P.no.315/1983. Though, writ petition was dismissed by order dated 22.02.1985, in appeal, Division Bench by order dated 24.01.1990 passed in Writ Appeal no.881/1985, quashed order dated 12.02.1982 passed by Tahasildar, with observation that dispute regarding title between original grantee, her heirs etc. and petitioners was to be resolved before Civil Court.

¶36

Thereafter, vendors of petitioners' father filed O.S.no.6646/1990 before Civil Court seeking for decree of permanent injunction against petitioners' father. During pendency of said suit, an application for amendment of plaint for adding prayer for declaration of title was filed. However, after allowing application for amendment, said suit was got dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh suit on same cause of action. But thereafter, fresh suit was not filed.

¶37

But, when petitioners’ possession over property was sought to be disturbed, petitioners' father filed O.S.no.10183/1991 seeking for permanent injunction against vendors. Said suit was decreed by judgment dated 16.12.1998 and RFA No.175/1999 filed by vendors of petitioners' father was disposed of on 04.02.2003.

¶38

¶39

WP No. 48252 of 2018

¶40

In meanwhile, petitioner no.2 filed O.S.no.2498/2000 against one Smt. H.V.Komala and also vendors of petitioners' father seeking declaration and possession with regard to property bearing no.70/3Z, situated in Sy.no.85/2. Even said suit came to be decreed on 19.03.2012.

¶41

Likewise, O.S.no.5596/1997 filed by Smt. S.Nirmala Babu with respect to site no.70/3H, came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 17.10.2014.

¶42

Further, Sri.Y.K.Suryanarayana filed

¶43

O.S.no.4686/1997, seeking permanent injunction against petitioners in respect of site no.70/4G, situated in Sy.no.85/2 came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 11.11.2013.

¶44

Thereafter, respondent no.4 filed

¶45

O.S.no.10022/2014 for partition and permanent injunction against petitioners and his family members, who were arrayed as defendants no.19 to 23. After filing of written statement by petitioners herein, said suit came to be dismissed for nonprosecution on 10.06.2022. Copy of order sheet is produced along with memo dated 29.03.2023.

¶46

In meanwhile, respondent no.4 had also filed Revision Petition no.148/2014-15 before Deputy Commissioner,

¶47

¶48

WP No. 48252 of 2018

¶49

Bangalore Urban District for effecting mutation in name of his father over Sy.no.85/2 to extent of 01 acre 26 guntas. During pendency of said proceedings, respondent no.4 claiming to be grandson of original grantee approached respondent no.1 - Commission by filing a Petition no.294/2016 as per AnnexureN. It was submitted that specific prayer sought in said petition

¶50

was:

¶51

"a) summon the respondents before this Hon'ble Cell and initiate legal action against the respondents for having played innocent petitioners while making attempts to grab the land bearing Survey No.85/2 measuring 1 acres 26 guntas of Hulimavu Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk;

¶52

b) to pass such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to pass in the ends of justice and equity.

¶53

SCHEDULE

¶54

All that piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy.no.85/2 out of which measuring 1 acres 26 guntas of Hulimvau Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South, Bangalore Urban District, bounded:

¶55

East by : Land belongs to Muthappa West by : Pillagaiah's Land North by : Free Sites South by : Land of Narayana Reddy.

¶56

Said petition was opposed by petitioners by filing

¶57

objections as per Annexure-O, narrating above litigation and

¶58

¶59

WP No. 48252 of 2018

¶60

seeking for rejection of petition on ground of misuse. Copies of title deeds of petitioners were also produced.

¶61

Without considering same in proper perspective, impugned directions came to be issued by Commission directing Tahasildar - respondent no.3 to effect mutation in favour of respondent no.4.

¶62

Learned counsel further submitted that impugned directions issued by Commission was beyond it's jurisdiction as defined under Section 8 of Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002 (for short 'SC & ST Act' ). It was further submitted that even during pendency of proceedings before Deputy Commissioner regarding mutation, issuance of said direction would be arbitrary and illegal. It was submitted that since date of purchase of suit property by petitioners' father, several litigations initiated before Civil Court and this Court, ended in favour of petitioners.

¶63

Nevertheless, respondents have continued to invoke one after other jurisdiction under various enactments in an apparent abuse of process of law and therefore, sought for quashing of directions.

¶64

¶65

WP No. 48252 of 2018

¶66

It was also submitted that though there was reference to provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'PTCL Act' ), respondent no.4 had not filed any application in that regard before authority. Right of respondents in any case, stood concluded by various judgments and decrees passed as stated above and therefore, learned counsel sought for allowing writ petition and quashing directions issued at Annexure-R.

¶67

On other hand, Sri. Bopanna B., learned counsel for respondent no.4 submitted that while issuing impugned directions, Commission exercised powers under Section 10 read with Section 8(a) of Act. Since respondent no.4 had invoked right under PTCL Act, Commission after due enquiry issued direction and same was in accordance with law and did not call for interference. Alternatively, it was submitted that even in case, this Court were to come to conclusion that exercise was jurisdiction by Commission under PTCL Act, was not called for, liberty may be reserved to respondent no.4 to approach Authorities under PTCL Act.

¶68

¶69

WP No. 48252 of 2018

¶70

Sri V.Shiva Reddy, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents no.2 and 3 sought to support impugned directions.

¶71

Heard learned counsel for parties, perused writ petition record.

¶72

From above submissions, main issue in instant case

¶73

would be whether Commission had jurisdiction to issue direction as done under Section 8 read with Section 10 of Act.

¶74

Further as per Section 8, its functions would be:

¶75

“ Section 8: Functions of Commission: The functions of the Commission shall be as follows:

¶76

(a) to investigate and examine the working of various safeguards provided in the constitution of India or under any other law for the time being in force or under any order of the Government for the welfare and protection of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes of Karnataka and;

¶77

(b) to inquire into specific complaints with respect to the deprivation of rights and safeguard of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes of Karnataka and to take up such matter with the appropriate authorities;

¶78

(c) to participate and advise on the planning process of socio economic development of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and to evaluate the progress of their development in the State.

¶79

(d) to make recommendations as to the measures that should be taken by the State for the effective implementation of safeguards and other measurers for the protection, welfare and socio economic development of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and to make report to the State

¶80

10 -

¶81

WP No. 48252 of 2018

¶82

Government annually and at such other time as the Commission may deems fit.

¶83

(e) to discharge such other functions in relation to the protection, welfare, development and advancement of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as may be prescribed.

¶84

Provided that if any matter specified in these sections is dealt with by the National commission for Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes established under Article 338 of the Constitution of India the State Commission for Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall cease to have jurisdiction on such matter".

¶85

It would indicate that Commission was empowered to investigate and examine working of various safeguards provided by law for welfare and protection of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes; to inquire about any specific complaints regarding deprivation of rights; and to advise on planning process for socio-economic development of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes; to make recommendations or measures to be taken for effecting implementation of safeguards etc.

¶86

22. Powers of Commission under Section 10 would be :

¶87

“ Section 10: Powers of Commission : The Commission shall, while investigating any matter under section 8, have all the powers of a Civil Court in trying a suit and in particular, in respect of the followings matters, namely:-

¶88

(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person from any part of the State and examining him on oath;

¶89

(b) requiring the discovery and production of any document;

¶90

11 -

¶91

WP No. 48252 of 2018

¶92

(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;

¶93

(d) requisitioning any public record or copy there of from any court or office;

¶94

(e) issuing Commissions for the examination of witnesses and documents; and

¶95

(f) any other matter which may be prescribed.

¶96

Though, Section 10 empowers Commission with powers of Civil

¶97

Court, they are specifically limited only in matters regarding Section 10 (a) to (f) and do not vest adjudicatory powers. Findings given and directions issued would thus be beyond scope of powers and functions of Commission.

¶98

In case, respondents were claiming right under PTCL Act, it was always available for them to have invoked same before appropriate authorities under PTCL Act.

¶99

Invocation of jurisdiction of Commission as also as Commission delving into such an enquiry cannot under above circumstances be justified. Therefore, impugned directions at Annexure-R would be liable to be quashed.

¶100

Hence, following:

¶101

O R D E R

¶102

i. Writ petition is allowed.

¶103

ii. Impugned directions issued by respondent no.1 - Commission by its order dated

¶104

12 -

¶105

WP No. 48252 of 2018

¶106

22.03.2018 in Case no.294/2016 at Annexure-R is quashed.

¶107

iii. No order as to costs.

¶108

Sd/JUDGE

¶109

GRD

Sri. N. Babu Reddy v. Karnataka State Commission Schedule Caste

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. N. Babu Reddy v. Karnataka State Commission Schedule Caste

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

Shri S B Ashok Vs Union of India

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Poornima

Sri Thimmappa Vs the Registrar

K Prakash Vs State of Karnataka

The Managing Director Vs Sri Ravindra

Shri. Ramegowda Vs the Karnataka Information Commission