Allowed

Sri. Satyanarayana v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2024WP/15516/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 directing the 4th respondent (Tahsildar) to rectify the khatha in the petitioner's name. The court held the Tahsildar derelict for ignoring a prior judgment that invalidated a transfer prohibition and ordered compliance within four weeks with costs imposed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; Tahsildar directed to effect khatha changes and restore petitioner's name within four weeks; cost of Rs.10,000 imposed on Tahsildar.

Sri. Satyanarayana Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38063 WP No. 15516 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 15516 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SATYANARAYANA S/O BASAPPA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAJENDRAPURA, BELAGODU HOBLI, SAKALESHPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573134.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PRAKASH M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-01.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN-573201.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAKALESHPURA SUB-DIVISION, SAKALESHPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT-573134.

¶16

THE TAHSILDAR OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:38063 WP No. 15516 of 2023

¶19

SAKALESHPUR HASSAN DISTRICT-573134.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. HARISH A.S. AGA)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04.12.2021 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER, VIDE ANNX-A AND DIRECT THE R2 TO CHANGE THE KHATHA IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY.

¶23

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The Captioned petition is filed seeking mandamus against the 2^nd respondent to consider the representation dated 04.12.2021 submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure-A. A direction is also sought against 2^nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner to change khatha and mutate petitioner’s name to schedule property by taking cognizance of the sale deed obtained by petitioner.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned AGA appearing for the respondents, perused the records.

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38063 WP No. 15516 of 2023

¶29

The endorsement issued by the 4^th

¶30

respondent/Tahsildar evidenced at Annexure-G is found to be contrary to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.33019/2016 evidenced at Annexure-B to the writ petition.

¶31

Paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the judgment rendered in the writ petition would be relevant and the same are extracted which reads as hereunder:

¶32

“4. The short point that would arise for consideration before this Court is whether the provisions of PTCL Act are applicable to the lands granted under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. Both the authorities have concurrently held that the petition lands were granted under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. On perusal of the records before this Court, it is evident that petitioner has placed on record the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Sakaleshpur as per Annexures-B and C and also the occupancy certificate issued by the competent authority as per Annexure-D and E. On perusal of these documents, having regard to the finding arrived at by the authorities, there is no dispute in regard to the nature of the lands. Admittedly, the occupancy rights was granted to the mother of the respondent No.5 under Section 45 of the Land Reforms Act, 1961. The authorities have issued occupancy certificate which is evident from Annexures-D and

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38063 WP No. 15516 of 2023

¶34

E. The law in regard to applicability of the provisions of the PTCL Act is no more res integra.

¶35

5. The Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Mohammed Jaffar and Another vs. State of Karnataka, By Secretary, Revenue Department and Others¹ has held that the occupancy rights granted under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act will not fall within the purview of the PTCL Act and therefore, any alienation would not attract the provisions of the PTCL Act. Though both the authorities have come to conclusion that occupancy rights was granted in favour of the mother of respondent No.5, however, by wrongly interpreting the definition under Section 3(e) of the PTCL Act, have come to conclusion that the alienation by the mother of respondent No.5 in favour of the petitioner is hit by the provisions under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. This finding recorded by both the authorities is palpably erroneous and contrary to the settled proposition of law rendered by the Full Bench judgment of this Court cited supra”.

¶36

On examining the findings recorded by this Court in

¶37

the earlier round of litigation, it is clearly evident that the petitioner’s vendors having sold the petition land, initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short ‘PTCL Act’). The 3^rd respondent-

¶38

1 ILR 2002 Kar 4693

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38063 WP No. 15516 of 2023

¶40

Assistant Commissioner entertained an appeal and declared the sale deed obtained by petitioner as null and void. This Court set aside the order passed by the 3^rd respondent/Assistant Commissioner and confirmed by 2^nd respondent/Deputy

¶41

Commissioner in the judgment cited supra.

¶42

Based on the order passed by this Court, it seems that the petitioner has submitted an application which is evidenced at Annexure-C requesting the 4^th respondent/Tahsildar to restore petitioner’s name. The endorsement issued by 4^th respondent/Tahsildar is a clear case of blatant misuse of power and also reflects lack of diligence on the part of 4^th respondent/Tahsildar. The 4^th respondent/Tahsildar was required to examine the order passed by this Court evidenced at Annexure-B.

¶43

Section 128 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964

¶44

imposes a duty on the jurisdictional Tahsildar to take cognizance of rights acquired under registered documents. The jurisdictional Tahsildar is also equally required to take cognizance of orders passed by the Constitutional Courts. As per the endorsement vide Annexure-G, the 4^th

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:38063 WP No. 15516 of 2023

¶46

respondent/Tahsildar has called upon the petitioner to approach Deputy Commissioner. This is a clear case of dereliction of duty on the part of 4^th respondent/Tahsildar. Petitioner’s sale deed dated 28.04.2006 though initially was declared to be void by 3^rd respondent/Assistant Commissioner by invoking the provisions of PTCL Act, the said order of resumption is set aside by this Court vide order dated 07.07.2021 in W.P.No.33019/2016.

¶47

Once an order of resumption passed by Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of PTCL Act is set aside by this Court, the 4^th respondent/Tahsildar ought to have taken note of the sale deed obtained by petitioner and also order passed by this Court and was required to effect changes in the khatha. The inaction on the part of 4^th respondent/Tahsildar appears to be deliberate for extraneous consideration. The 4^th respondent was required to look into the order passed by this Court and pass appropriate orders in terms of the procedure contemplated under Section 128 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Therefore, this is a fit case where a mandamus lies. This Court also deems it fit to impose a cost of Rs.10,000/- on 4^th respondent/Tahsildar payable to petitioner.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:38063 WP No. 15516 of 2023

¶50

For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the

¶51

following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶54

(ii) The 4^th respondent/Tahsildar is hereby directed to forthwith effect changes in khatha and accordingly restore petitioner’s name by taking cognizance of the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.33019/2016 evidenced at Annexure-B.

¶55

(iii) The exercise shall be accomplished within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶56

(iv) A cost of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to the petitioner by 4^th respondent/Tahsildar from his pocket to the petitioner and the same shall be reported to the Registry of this Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶57

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶58

¶59

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3

Sri. Satyanarayana v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Satyanarayana 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Thimmakka Vs Sri. Girish

Niveditha K S Vs the State of Karnataka

K G Pillamadappa Vs Chikka Nanjundappa

Sri Galappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Punith S Vs State of Karnataka

Aris Vs State of Karnataka