Dismissed

Smt Venkatamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2024WP/24085/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking quashing of land grants to Respondent 5 dismissed. Court held Section 4 of the PTCL Act cannot be invoked as there was no sale of the granted land, and the department lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate overlapping revenue grants.

What did the court decide?

No resumption of land granted to Respondent 5 ordered; Writ Petition dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction and absence of sale.

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

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:46572 WP No. 24085 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 24085 OF 2015 (SC-ST)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT VENKATAMMA W/O RAMAPPA @ MOOGANNA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) RESIDING AT: ADENNAGARAHALLI (DIGURU) ARURU POST CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK …PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. VISHWANATH R HEGDE., ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE REP. BY PRL. SECRETORY, K.R.CIRCLE BANGALORE-01

¶12

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

¶13

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHICKBALLAPUR, CHIKBALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 101

¶14

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKBALLAPUR SUB DIVISION CHIKBALLAPUR TALUK AND DIST - 562 101

¶15

THASILDAR CHIKBALLAPUR, CHIKBALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 101

¶16

NARASIMAPPA S/O NYATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/ AT:ADENNAGARAHALLI

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:46572 WP No. 24085 of 2015

¶19

(DIGURU) ARURU POST CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK - 562 101

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT.SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI.S.R.SREEPRASAD, ADV. FOR R5)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH /SET ASIDE LAND GRANTS IN FAVOR THE R-5 IN SY.NO.131 TO AN EXTENT OF 1-20 GUNTAS DTD.18.6.1998 ANNEXURE-D AND AGAIN IN SAME SY.NO.131 AN EXTENT OF 0-25 GUNTAS WAS GRANTED VIDE ORDER DTD.5.7.2004 ANNEXURE-E AND IN SY.NO.96 AN EXTENT OF 0-25 GUNTAS VIDE ORDER DATED.10.8.2004, ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY TAHSILDAR CHIKKABALLAPURA ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DTD.7.6.2010 ANNEXURE-K AND ORDER PASSED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER R.A.NO.73/2010[-11 DTD.7.8.2013 ANNEXURE-L.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner contended that her husband was

¶27

granted 3 acres of land on 12.05.1957. The petitioner also contends that this property, which

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:46572 WP No. 24085 of 2015

¶29

was granted to her husband, was sold in the year 1965 in favour of D.N. Jalarappa, Y.Krishnappa and Chikkanarasimhappa and an application made for resumption was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner on 10.09.1982 and the granted land was restituted in their favour.

¶30

The petitioner contends that the very same lands that had been granted to her husband was granted to respondent No.5 on 18.06.1988, 05.07.2004 and 10.08.2004.

¶31

The petitioner accordingly proceeded to make an application for resumption of the said lands and the said application was accepted by the Assistant Commissioner which has, however, been reversed by the Deputy Commissioner under the impugned order.

¶32

After a remand and a protracted litigation, by the impugned orders, the application for resumption was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and also

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:46572 WP No. 24085 of 2015

¶35

confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. Hence, this Writ Petition.

¶36

Learned counsel for respondent No.5 contends that respondent No.5 had instituted a suit in O.S. No.73/2010 against the petitioner and others seeking a decree of injunction and said suit has been decreed in favour of respondent No.5. He also submits that the petitioner herself had instituted a suit in O.S. No.78/2010 seeking a declaration and the said suit was dismissed and it is contended that as against the dismissal of the suit for declaration an appeal in R.A. No.154/2010 was preferred and the same was also dismissed and consequently, the claim of the petitioner that she was the owner of the land has been refused by the Civil Court and this decree has become final.

¶37

As noticed above, it is the admitted case of the petitioner that she had made an application for resumption and the land was resumed in her favour.

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:46572 WP No. 24085 of 2015

¶39

If that is the admitted position, the question of the petitioner invoking the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, ‘ the PTCL Act ’) to set aside a grant made in favour of respondent No.5 would never arise.

¶40

It is to be noticed that to invoke Section 4 of the PTCL Act, there must be a transfer of granted land in contravention of the terms of the grant and only then could the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner assume jurisdiction to order for resumption.

¶41

The Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner cannot sit in judgment over a grant made by the Revenue Authority in respect of that very land. In other words, if there is an overlapping grant made by the Revenue Authorities, the same cannot be adjudicated upon by the Assistant

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:46572 WP No. 24085 of 2015

¶44

Commissioner while entertaining an application for resumption under Section 4 of the PTCL Act.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, seeks to place reliance on sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the PTCL Act to state that the provision indicates that the provision of Section 4 can be invoked even in respect of an order of any Authority. In my view, this argument is misconceived.

¶46

Sub-section (3) of Section 4¹ of the PTCL Act categorically states that the provisions of Section 4(1) and (2) would apply even in respect of sale of any land sold in execution of a decree or an order of Civil Court or of an Award or the order of any other

¶47

1 4. Prohibition of transfer of granted lands.- (1) Notwithstanding anything in any law, agreement, contract or instrument, any transfer of granted land made either before or after the commencement of this Act, in contravention of the terms of the grant of such land or the law providing for such grant, or sub-section (2) shall be null and void and no right, title or interest in such land shall be conveyed or be deemed ever to have conveyed by such transfer.

¶48

(2) No person shall, after the commencement of this Act, transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land without the previous permission of the Government.

¶49

(3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply also to the sale of any land in execution of a decree or order of a civil court or of any award or order of any other authority.

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:46572 WP No. 24085 of 2015

¶52

Authority. The intent of Section 4(3) is that there must be a sale and the sale must be pursuant to any of those conditions mentioned in Section 4(3) and only then Section 4 can be invoked and a request for

¶53

resumption can be made.

¶54

In this case admittedly there is no sale of the granted land and, therefore, the question of invoking Section 4 would not arise. Consequently, I find no ground to entertain this petition. This Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed.

¶55

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶56

HNM

¶57

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

Smt Venkatamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Venkatamma v. 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

Sri. M. P. Vijayakumar Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Lavanya T K Vs Sri. Shankaramurthy S R

Niranjan Murthy Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Sharadamma Vs the Special Deputy Commissioner

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

P E Rudrappa Vs State of Karnataka