Allowed

Smt. Jayalakshmamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Jul 2023WP/52615/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed resumption orders against a purchaser. The court held orders were erroneous without evidence the land was granted and remitted the matter for fresh enquiry regarding limitation from the first 1949 alienation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned resumption orders of Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner quashed; matter remitted to Assistant Commission for fresh enquiry.

Smt. Jayalakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:25836 WP No. 52615 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 52615 OF 2015 (SC-ST)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE B P PAPANNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT BELLANDURU VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560 101

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SANGAMESH R B, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT 5^TH FLOOR, M S BUILDING DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

¶14

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT K G ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009

¶15

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION KANDHAYA BHAVAN, K G ROAD BANGALORE-560 009

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:25836 WP No. 52615 of 2015

¶18

SRI M RAMESH

¶19

S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS NO.875/1, MUNISWAMAPPA LANE MANJUNATH INSTITUTE T DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 057

¶20

SRI MUNIKAVERAPPA S/O LATE CHINTHANAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS NO.824, 9^TH MAIN ROAD KANTEERAVA NAGARA 2^ND STAGE NANDINI LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 096 (DEAD BY LRS)

¶21

5A. SRI.MAHESH,

¶22

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, AADHAR NO.5514 7190 7127 S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA NO.824, KANTEERAVA LAYOUT, 9^TH CROSS, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU POSTAL PIN CODE-560096.

¶23

5B. SMT.RENUKA

¶24

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, AADHAR NO.6074 8224 1792 W/O ANANDA.M NO.914, KANTEERAVA NAGARA, 10^TH CROSS, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU POSTAL PIN CODE - 560096.

¶25

SRI VENKATARAMANAPPA S/O LATE CHINTHANAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS NO.88, SWAMY VIVEKANANDA EXTENSION, HOSUR MAIN ROAD

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:25836 WP No. 52615 of 2015

¶27

ANEKAL, BANGALORE DISTRICT (DEAD BY LRS)

¶28

6A. SRI.SRINIVAS.M AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, AADHAR NO.9820 9668 6189 S/O LATE M.MUNIYAPPA @ VENKATARAMANAPPA NO.8, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, SWAMY VIVEKANANDA LAYOUT, ANEKAL.

¶29

6B. SMT. RENUKA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, AADHAR NO. 6104 7368 7765 W/O RAJAGOPAL D/O LATE M.MUNIYAPPA @ VENKATARAMANAPPA NO.26/1, 3^RD CROSS, BYRAASANDRA, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560011 (AMENDED AS PER ORDER DTD: 16.3.2023)

¶30

DR.P.ANIL KUMAR S/O PRABHAKARAN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OFFICE AT NO.27, M.J.HOUSE, M.J.CORPORATE OFFICE, MUNICIPAL COUNTY CLUB ROAD, SINGASANDRA, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560068.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VENAKATA SATHYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1 TO 3; SRI.ROHAN HOSMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI.R.D.PANCHAM, ADVOCATE FOR R7; SRI.RAGHAVENDRA.V, ADVOCATE FOR R5(A & B), R6(A & B))

¶32

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:25836 WP No. 52615 of 2015

¶33

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER ANNEXURE-A DTD: 23.7.2015 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN THE CASE NO.KSC.ST.226/2008-09 AND TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 28/12/2007 PASSED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH IN NO.KSC.ST(A)3/2002-03 AS PER ANNEXURE-B AS BEING ILLEGAL CONTRARY TO LAW AND THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE WITH COSTS OF THIS WP.

¶34

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

¶35

ORDER

¶36

The captioned petition is filed by the purchaser assailing the concurrent orders passed by the authorities in allowing the application seeking resumption of land and consequently, sale deed dated 04.12.1995, executed by Munivenkatappa, son of original grantee namely Chinthana in favour of petitioner, is declared to be null and void and consequently, restoration is ordered.

¶37

The subject matter of the captioned petition is agricultural land bearing Sy.No.132 corresponding New No.189. Respondent No.4 who is the grandson of original grantee Chinthana S/o Muniga filed an application seeking resumption of the land in question by contending that the

¶38

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:25836 WP No. 52615 of 2015

¶39

land in question was granted to his grandfather Chinthana.

¶40

The respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner and respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner by referring to the grant order dated 04.03.1932 have come to conclusion that sale by the son of original grantee and father of respondent No.4 on 04.12.1995 is in contravention of provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short "PTCL Act") and therefore, alleging contravention under Section 4(1) of PTCL Act, an application is filed seeking resumption.

¶41

This Court vide order dated 25.04.2016 directed learned HCGP to secure original records. On the said date, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also brought to the notice of the Court that 1995 transaction is not the first transaction and in fact original grantee during his lifetime alienated the land in question way back in 1949. Therefore, the matter was adjourned to enable the petitioner to place on record copy of sale deed of the year

¶42

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:25836 WP No. 52615 of 2015

¶43

The petitioner by way of memo has placed on record certified copy of sale deed dated 01.03.1949.

¶44

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents and learned HCGP, the following points would arise for consideration:

¶45

1) Whether the authorities below erred in assuming that the land in question is a granted land in absence of material placed on record by the legal heirs of original grantee to substantiate that the land was granted under depressed class category?

¶46

2) Even if the land is presumed to be a granted land, to ascertain as to whether resumption sought is within reasonable period, the first sale which is of the year 1949 needs to be taken into consideration to reckon limitation?

¶47

Learned HCGP on examining the records, has

¶48

made a statement that the grant order indicated in the order of Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner is not found in the original records. Therefore, the stand taken by the petitioner that inspite of

¶49

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:25836 WP No. 52615 of 2015

¶50

an application being submitted to the authority to furnish a copy of grant order, the authority has issued an endorsement indicating that grant orders are not available in the records. The said endorsement is evidenced at Annexure-E to the writ petition.

¶51

If the statement made by learned HCGP coupled with endorsement vide Annexure-E is meticulously examined, this Court is unable to understand as to on what basis respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner and respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner have come to conclusion that the land in question is a granted land. The respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner has placed reliance on a grant order dated 16.03.1932 passed in AZN.GD/137/31-32. This order is not found in the original records. To seek resumption, the grantee or legal heirs of grantee have to substantiate that the land in question is a granted land and therefore, alienations are in contravention of provisions of PTCL Act. Unless, a grantee establishes that it is a granted land, the authority cannot

¶52

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:25836 WP No. 52615 of 2015

¶53

invoke the provisions of PTCL Act. Though both the authorities have referred to the grant order, surprisingly this order is not found in the original records. Therefore, the concurrent orders passed by both the authorities ordering for resumption of the land in question on an assumption that it is a granted land is patently erroneous and in absence of documentary evidence.

¶54

The next question that requires consideration is, if original grantee has alienated the property in favour of his brother under registered sale deed dated 01.03.1949, then the contravention having taken place way back in 1949, limitation has to be computed from the date of first sale deed and not from the second sale deed. The petitioner has placed reliance on this registered sale deed for the first time before this Court. The legal heirs of original grantee have to be offered an opportunity to counter this document and therefore, I am of the view that the matter needs to be remitted back to respondent No.3Assistant Commissioner to hold fresh enquiry.

¶55

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:25836 WP No. 52615 of 2015

¶56

This Court has also taken note of the fact that the order of resumption passed by the respondent No.3Assistant Commissioner was stayed by this Court vide order dated 25.04.2016. Though matter was seized before this Court and order of resumption was subject matter before this Court, the legal heirs of grantee, more particularly respondent No.4 who is a party to the present writ petition has concealed pendency of the writ petition and has again approached the authority seeking permission to alienate the granted land by moving an application under Section 4(2). Based on an permission granted by the authority, respondent No.4 and all the legal heirs of original grantee have sold the land in question in favour of respondent No.7. The permission granted by the authority under Section 4(2) and consequent alienations made by the legal heirs of original grantee would be subject to the result of this proceedings.

¶57

In the event, petitioner succeeds and his alienations are saved at the hands of this Court, then I am

¶58

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:25836 WP No. 52615 of 2015

¶59

of the view that the permission sought and granted by the authority and consequent alienations are of no consequence. The subsequent purchasers would acquire valid right and title only in the event petitioner fails and resumption proceedings initiated at the first instance are upheld. Accordingly, point Nos.1 and 2 formulated above are answered in the affirmative.

¶60

With these observations, I pass the following:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

(i) The writ petition is allowed;

¶63

(ii) The order dated 23.07.2015 passed by the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A and the order dated 28.12.2007 passed by the respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-B are hereby quashed;

¶64

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner shall decide the case by taking note of the findings and observations made by this Court in the preceding paragraphs;

¶65

11 -

¶66

NC: 2023:KHC:25836 WP No. 52615 of 2015

¶67

(iv) Since the parties are represented by their respective counsels, without expecting any further notice, the parties are directed to appear before the respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner on 04.09.2023;

¶68

(v) The pending interlocutory application, if any, does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.

¶69

Sd/JUDGE

¶70

CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Smt. Jayalakshmamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jayalakshmamma v. the State of Karnataka

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

Pakeerappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt Prasavi a N Vs Sri Lokesh N

Lakshmidevamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

S Venkataswamy Vs Deputy Commissioner

Anatha Sevashrama Trust (R) Vs State of Karnataka

Karnataka Schedule Caste and Tribes Welfare Association (R) Vs State of Karnataka