Allowed

Smt Hanumakka v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2024WP/16184/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, purchasers of land, challenged PTCL Act proceedings for resumption on the ground that the land was granted land. The Assistant Commissioner's own order showed only unauthorized occupation had been regularised, not a grant to a Scheduled Caste member. Holding the proceedings were without jurisdiction, the High Court set aside the orders.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 15/09/2023 and 30/08/2021 set aside; revenue entries restored in petitioners' names.

Smt Hanumakka Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:45376 WP No. 16184 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.16184 OF 2024 (SCST)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. HANUMAKKA W/O. LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE

¶9

SHRI. GURUMURTHY S/O. RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE

¶10

SMT. LEPAKSHI D/O. RANGAPPA W/O. MARUTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE

¶11

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

ALL ARE PERMANENT RESIDENTS OF ADALURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT – 562 137.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI G. A. SRIKANTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 REP. BY SECRETARY.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:45376 WP No. 16184 of 2024

¶19

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR – 562 101.

¶20

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MADHUGIRI SUB-DIVISION MADHUGIRI -572 132.

¶21

SHRI. PANDURANGAPPA S/O. K. C. DODDARANGAIAH AGED MAJOR (AS ALLEGED IN THE APPLICATION DATED 14.10.2016 FILED BEFORE A.C)

¶22

SHRI. RANGANATHAIAH S/O. LATE. CHITTANAYAKA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE

¶23

SMT. GIRIJAMMA W/O. RANGANATHAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶24

SHRI. RAVIKUMAR S/O. RANGANATHAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶25

KUM. RAMYA D/O. RANGANATHAIAH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶26

THE RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT, KALAPURA VILLAGE KALLAMBELLA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 137.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3; R-4 TO R-8 ARE SERVED)

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:45376 WP No. 16184 of 2024

¶30

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALLING FOR THE RECORDS QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 15/09/2023 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER R-2 IN PTCL 35/2021 (ANNEXURE-E) AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30/08/2021 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER R-2 IN PTCL.SR.23.2016-17 (ANNEXURE-D).

¶31

THIS WP, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

The petitioners are the purchasers of the lands in question under two sale deeds.

¶35

The respondent No.4 approached the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2016-17 contending that the land in question had been granted to his grandfather and in violation of the terms of the grant, the property had been sold by his father and, therefore, the land was required to be resumed.

¶36

The Assistant Commissioner in his order has recorded a finding in the following terms –

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:45376 WP No. 16184 of 2024

¶39

“¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄAdÆgÁw DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ jÃvÁå PÀbÉÃj eÁÕ¥À£À ¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ:07/1981

¶40

EzÀÄÝ ºÁUÀÆ ¢£ÁAPÀ:14-09-1982 gÀ°è ¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¦vÀ ¸À.£ÀA. £À°è

¶41

§UÀgïºÀÄPÀÄÌ¤AzÀ ¸ÁUÀÄªÀ½ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁw/¥Àj²µÀÖ ¥ÀAUÀqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉAiÀÄªÀgÀ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉÆ½¸ÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ ¸ÀÜ¼À vÀ¤SÉ PÀÄjvÀAvÉ G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ ¥ÀvÀæ §gÉ¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¢£ÁAPÀ:28-09-1982 gÀ°è J¯ïJ£ïr:DgïAiÀÄÄ¹ (J¸ï):131:82-83 jÃvÁå ¸ÀÜ¼À vÀ¤SÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ ¨Á§ÄÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄÄA¢£À CUÀvÀå PÀæªÀÄPÉÌ PÀqÀvÀªÀ£ÀÄß G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ »AwgÀÄV¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ§A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.”

¶42

Thus, as could be seen from the above said order, the land in question was under the unauthorized cultivation of the petitioner’s grandfather and this unauthorized occupation only has been regularized. It is therefore clear that the land in question was not

¶43

‘a granted land’, as defined under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, ‘the PTCL Act’ ). In order to be a granted land, the land under the PTCL Act, it will have to be necessarily established that applications were filed by the grantee seeking grant on the ground that he or

¶44

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:45376 WP No. 16184 of 2024

¶45

she belongs to Scheduled Caste and were entitled to grant of available lands earmarked for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe.

¶46

It is only after the lands are granted, as provided under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 to persons who belong to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe and from the lands which are earmarked for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, can they come within the definition of ‘granted land’. The statutory right of an unauthorized occupant to be regularized of his unauthorized occupation cannot transform said land to be a ‘granted land’, as defined under the PTCL Act.

¶47

In view of the fact that the authorities have themselves recorded a finding that the grandfather’s unauthorized possession was merely regularized, the very initiation of proceedings on the premise that it is a granted land under the PTCL Act would be without

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:45376 WP No. 16184 of 2024

¶50

jurisdiction. Consequently, the impugned orders are

¶51

set aside and this Writ Petition is allowed.

¶52