Dismissed

Smt. Sharadamma v. the Special Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2024WP/13806/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed two writ petitions filed by successors of a former grantee and other family members opposing land resumption orders. The court held that since the original grantee sold the property in 1953 after the mandatory 20-year alienation period expired, the land ceased to be 'granted land', and the patent prohibition on transfer could not be invoked against the subsequent sale.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions for quashing the impugned orders refusing resumption of land were dismissed.

Smt. Sharadamma Vs the Special Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:46571 WP No. 13806 of 2011 C/W WP No. 23637 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶6

W.P. NO. 13806 OF 2011 C/W W.P. NO. 23637 OF 2012 (SC-ST)

¶7

IN WP No. 13806/2011

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SHARADAMMA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS W/O SHRI CHANNAPPA THANISANDRA VILLAGE KRISHNARAJAPURAM HOBLI (BANGALORE NORTH, TALUK) NOW BANGALORE EAST TALUK …PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.G.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI.SHRIDHARA MURTHY, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICTBANGALORE-1

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION PODIUM BLOCK, BANGALORE-1

¶15

SHRI RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O LATE SONNAPPA THANISANDRA VILLAGE KRISHNARAJAPURAM HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK

¶16

SINCE DEAD PROPOSED RESPONDENT NO.3(a) TO 3(f)

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:46571 WP No. 13806 of 2011 C/W WP No. 23637 of 2012

¶18

3(a) SMT.DODDA NANJAMMA (1^ST WIFE) W/O LATE S.RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

¶19

3(b) SRI.PRAKASH

¶20

S/O LATE S.RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶21

3(c) SRI.RAJA S/O LATE S.RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶22

3(d) SMT.CHIKKA NANJAMMA (2^ND WIFE) W/O LATE S.RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

¶23

3(e) SRI.RAMESH S/O LATE S.RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶24

3(f) SRI. SRINIVAS S/O LATE S.RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶25

RESPONDENT NOS.3(a) TO 3(f) ARE R/AT R & R CONSTRUCTION THANISANDRA VILLAGE

¶26

SRK NAGAR, BENGALURU TALUK - 560 077

¶27

[AS PER THE ORDER DATED 3.08.2016 AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT]

¶28

CHIKKANNA S/O HEBAL CHANNASWAMAPPA

¶29

SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

¶30

4(a) YEMANNA S/O CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶31

4(b) CHINNASWAMANNA S/O CHIKKANNA

¶32

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶33

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:46571 WP No. 13806 of 2011 C/W WP No. 23637 of 2012

¶34

RESPONDENT NOS. 4(a) AND 4(b) ARE R/AT THANISANDRA VILLAGE KRISHNARAJAPURAM HOBLI

¶35

(BANGALORE NORTH TQ)

¶36

NOW BLORE EAST TQ

¶37

SHRI SYED ABDUL WAHID S/O SYED YUSUF AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT NO.91/1, KUPPASWAMY COMPOUND, NAGAWARA MAIN ROAD ARABIC COLLEGE ROAD

¶38

BANGALORE - 560 045

¶39

5(a) SMT.NARGIS BANU W/O LATE WAHID PASHA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶40

R/AT NO.91/1, KUPPASWAMY COMPOUND, NAGAWARA MAIN ROAD ARABIC COLLEGE ROAD

¶41

BANGALORE - 560 045

¶42

5(b) SRI.ATHAULLA W/O LATE WAHID PASHA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶43

R/AT NO.91/1, KUPPASWAMY COMPOUND, NAGAWARA MAIN ROAD ARABIC COLLEGE ROAD

¶44

BANGALORE - 560 045

¶45

[AMENDMENT OF CAUSE TITLE IS CARRIED OUT AS PER VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 5.9.2022] …RESPONDENTS

¶46

(BY SMT.SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI.JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SR.COUNSEL A/W SRI. K. RAMESH RAO, ADV. AND SRI.MUNIYAPPA, ADV. FOR R5; R4(a) AND R4(b) - SERVED)

¶47

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:46571 WP No. 13806 of 2011 C/W WP No. 23637 of 2012

¶50

QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED.21.7.2010 PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT IN CASE NO.SC.ST(A)162/2008-09 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶51

IN WP NO. 23637/2012

¶52

BETWEEN:

¶53

AKKAYAPPA S/O LATE CHANNARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS THANISANDRA, K R PURA HOLBI BANGALORE EAST TALUK

¶54

VENKATESH S/O CHANNARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS THANISANDRA, K.R. PURA HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK

¶55

...PETITIONERS

¶56

(BY SRI.G.V.CHANDRA SHEKAR, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI.H.R.SHRIDHARA MURTHY, ADV.)

¶57

AND:

¶58

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE

¶59

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION BANGALORE

¶60

A GOVINDAPPA S/O LATE APPANNAPPA THANISANDRA K R PURAM HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK

¶61

CHIKKANNA S/O HEBBAL CHINNASWAMAPPA [SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS]

¶62

4(a) T.C.HEMANNA

¶63

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:46571 WP No. 13806 of 2011 C/W WP No. 23637 of 2012

¶64

S/O LATE CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶65

4(b) T.C.CHINNASWAMY S/O LATE CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS

¶66

4(a) AND 4(b) ARE R/AT HEGDE NAGAR MAIN ROAD OPP KEB NARAYANAPPA BUILDING THANISANDRA VILLAGE SHIVARAMAKARANTH NAGAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 077

¶67

MANJAMMA W/O LATE GUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.53, AADITYA NAGAR 5^TH MAIN ROAD, KOTHANUR MAIN ROAD, J.P.NAGAR, 8^TH PHASE BENGALURU - 560 0078

¶68

[AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 9.1.2015] ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1& R2; SRI.JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI.K.RAMESH RAO, ADV. & SRI. MUNIYAPPA, ADV. FOR R3; SRI. NAGAIAH, ADV. FOR R5; R4(a) & R4(b) ARE SERVED)

¶69

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 26.5.12 PASSED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-R1-ANNEXURE-Q PASSED BY CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 2.8.08 PASSED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER-R2-ANNEXURE-K.

¶70

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶71

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:46571 WP No. 13806 of 2011 C/W WP No. 23637 of 2012

¶72

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶73

ORAL ORDER

¶74

Sharadamma, wife of Chennappa and the daughter-inlaw of the original grantee—Chennarayappa, filed an application seeking resumption of the land contending that it was a granted land and the same had been conveyed in favor of Ramachandra on 30.06.1992.

¶75

Similarly, another application was filed by Akkayyappa and Venkatesh, who were the sons of second wife and the original grantee—Chennarayappa seeking resumption of the land that they had sold on 30.06.1992, in favor of one Govindappa.

¶76

The Assistant Commissioner rejected the application filed by Akkayyappa and Venkatesh, while in respect of the claim for resumption by Sharadamma, the Assistant Commissioner accepted the application for resumption and passed an order of resumption.

¶77

Being aggrieved by the rejection of their application, Akkayyappa and Venkatesh preferred an appeal to the

¶78

¶79

NC: 2024:KHC:46571 WP No. 13806 of 2011 C/W WP No. 23637 of 2012

¶80

Deputy Commissioner. Similarly, being aggrieved by the passing of an order of resumption, the purchaser— Ramachandrappa preferred an appeal.

¶81

The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal of Akkayyappa and Venkatesh, and as a consequence, they are before this Court in W.P. No.23637 of 2012.

¶82

The Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal filed by Ramachandrappa and rejected the application for resumption that had been filed by Sharadamma and as a consequence, Sharadamma is before this court in W.P. No.13806 for 2011.

¶83

In other words, these writ petitions are by the applicants who had sought resumption and which has ultimately been refused by the authorities.

¶84

These facts are not in dispute:

¶85

In the year 1930-31, the land bearing Sy.No.93/4 measuring 02 acres situated Thanisandra Village of Krishna Raja Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, was

¶86

¶87

NC: 2024:KHC:46571 WP No. 13806 of 2011 C/W WP No. 23637 of 2012

¶88

granted to Chennarayappa under the then existing Rules.

¶89

The Deputy Commissioner, in the impugned order has recorded a clear finding that as per the revenue entries, the lands were granted on 11.04.1930. Since these lands have been granted in the year 1930, the Rules which prevailed at that time prescribed a period of 20 years as non-alienation period.

¶90

It is not in dispute that the original grantee Chennarayappa sold the land that had been granted to him on 03.08.1953 i.e., beyond the period of 20 years prescribed under the terms of the grant. It is therefore clear that the land that had been sold by the grantee was permissible under the terms of the grant and not in contravention of the terms of the grant.

¶91

It is, however, the case of the applicants who had sought resumption that they were the legal heirs of Chennarayappa inasmuch as they were the first wife and the sons of the second wife, and the sale deed

¶92

¶93

NC: 2024:KHC:46571 WP No. 13806 of 2011 C/W WP No. 23637 of 2012

¶94

dated 03.08.1953 executed by Chennarayappa was essentially a nominal sale deed. It was their case that it was a loan transaction and they had repaid the loan and as a consequence, the property was re-conveyed to the family on 10.10.1974.

¶95

It was their case that at that point in time, the grantee—Chennarayappa decided to get the deed of re-conveyance executed in the name of his first wife’s sons and the second wife in order to avoid a conflicts and to effect a division and in essence, the property continued in the family right from the date of the grant.

¶96

The applicants thereafter proceeded to contend that the land, by virtue of it being a granted land, could not have been alienated and the alienation that they had made in the year 1992 attracted the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Act/PTCL Act ’ for

¶97

10 -

¶98

NC: 2024:KHC:46571 WP No. 13806 of 2011 C/W WP No. 23637 of 2012

¶99

brevity), as it was conveyed after the Act had come into force and as such, Section 4(2) of the Act stood attracted.

¶100

The Deputy Commissioner, in these cases has come to the conclusion that the granted land was capable of being sold after the expiry of 20 years from 1930 and since the lands had been sold as permissible under the terms of the grant, the provisions of the PTCL Act could not be invoked and the land could not be resumed.

¶101

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants, however, contends that the sale deed executed by Chennarayappa—the original grantee was essentially a nominal sale deed and, therefore, that sale would be of no consequence. According to him, it is only the sale of the year 1992, which was made by the applicants herein, which would be relevant for the purposes of this case.

¶102

11 -

¶103

NC: 2024:KHC:46571 WP No. 13806 of 2011 C/W WP No. 23637 of 2012

¶104

He submitted that since it is admitted that the land was granted and the alienation made by them was after the Act having come into force in 1978, there was a clear violation of Section 4(2) of the Act and the land was therefore required to be resumed.

¶105

It is to be stated here that when the land was granted in the year 1930-31, the bar for alienation was for a period of 20 years. In other words, for a period of 20 years the grant was a conditional grant. On the period of 20 years expiring, the conditional grant became an absolute grant and the grantee was at liberty to deal with the property in any manner as he thought fit.

¶106

Since the grantee decided to sell the property in the year 1953, which was perfectly legal, the provisions of the PTCL Act cannot obviously be attracted. The argument that the sale deed is only a nominal sale deed cannot be entertained at the request of the petitioners who had claimed to re-purchase the land in the year 1974.

¶107

12 -

¶108

NC: 2024:KHC:46571 WP No. 13806 of 2011 C/W WP No. 23637 of 2012

¶109

The moment a sale deed was executed in year 1953, whether it was nominal or otherwise, the fact remains that there was a conveyance of title in favor of a third party, i.e., Chennarayappa.

¶110

It is also to be stated here that at the time of this conveyance, there was no prohibition for the sale and the land stood vested absolutely in favor of Chennarayappa. If the land stood vested absolutely in the name of Chennarayappa, the question of it being a granted land as defined under the provisions of the PTCL Act would not arise. The subsequent re-purchase by the applicants, even assuming it was re-purchased by the grantee, would not change the nature of the land and would not resume the character of it to be a granted land.

¶111

The moment a purchase was made by the applicants from the purchasers who were entitled to purchase it, the land essentially becomes their personal property and cannot be construed as the property of the

¶112

NC: 2024:KHC:46571 WP No. 13806 of 2011 C/W WP No. 23637 of 2012

¶113

13 -

¶114

grantee—Chennarayappa. Consequently, the sale made by them in the year 1992 can never be held to be a transfer in contravention of the terms of the grant.

¶115

It is to be noticed here that the petitioners did not succeed to the property as the legal heirs of the grantee, but they had purchased the property under two registered sale leads and they cannot, therefore, contend that it is a granted land.

¶116

In that view, the matter the Deputy Commissioner was absolutely justified in coming to the conclusion that the provisions of the PTCL Act would not stand attracted and there was no alienation, which could be declared as null and void.

¶117

The writ petitions are therefore dismissed .

¶118

In light of the above, the other contentions advanced by the parties need not be considered.

¶119

14 -

¶120

NC: 2024:KHC:46571 WP No. 13806 of 2011 C/W WP No. 23637 of 2012

¶121

In light of the dismissal writ petitions, the pending interlocutory applications, if any, also would not survive for consideration and they are accordingly

¶122

stand disposed of.

¶123

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶124

¶125

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62

Smt. Sharadamma v. the Special Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sharadamma v. the Special Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. M. P. Vijayakumar Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Lavanya T K Vs Sri. Shankaramurthy S R

Niranjan Murthy Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt Venkatamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Muniyappa S/O Late Chiksatyappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

P E Rudrappa Vs State of Karnataka