Allowed

Sri. Late Sanna Surappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Jun 2024WP/33228/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Purchasers challenged resumption orders under the PTCL Act. Original records showed the temporary grant had been cancelled and land allotted at upset price without prohibition on sale, and allottee's community was not then Scheduled Tribe. Court held PTCL Act inapplicable to non-granted land, quashed the resumption order, and directed digitisation of revenue records with a report due.

What did the court decide?

Writ of certiorari issued; order No.SCPTL(A) 139/1984-85 dated 13-04-2016 quashed; authorities directed to digitise revenue records with report due.

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

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:21359 WP No. 33228 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 33228 OF 2016 (SCST)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. LATE SANNA SURAPPA, S/O PALAIAH, SINCE, DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

¶9

1A) SRI. THIPPESWAMY, S/O LATE SANNA SURAPPA, AGE 63 YEARS.

¶10

1B) SRI. PRAKASH, S/O LATE SANNA SURAPPA, AGE 55 YEARS.

¶11

1C) SRI. SANNA PALAIAH, S/O SRI. LATE SANNA SURAPPA, AGE 70 YEARS.

¶12

Digitally signed by NARAYANAPPA LAKSHMAMMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

1D) SRI. NAGARAJAPPA, S/O LATE SANNA SURAPPA,

¶14

AGE 58 YEARS.

¶15

1E) SRI. JNANASWAMY, S/O LATE SANNA SURAPPA, AGE 53 YEARS.

¶16

1F) SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O LATE SANNA SURAPPA, AGE 95 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O NISARGA, GADRILINGESHWARA KRUPA,

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:21359 WP No. 33228 of 2016

¶18

BANK COLONY, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 1^ST CROSS, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI. R. SWAMYNATHAN., ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M. S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶23

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

¶24

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

¶25

SRI. OBAIAH NAIK S/O LATE OBAIAH SINCE, DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

¶26

4A) SRI.CHANDRAPPA, S/O LATE OBAIAH NAIK, AGE 65 YEARS.

¶27

4B) SRI. RAJAPPA, S/O LATE OBAIAH NAIK,

¶28

AGE 60 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT GONURU VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 517.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA., HCGP FOR R1-R3,

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:21359 WP No. 33228 of 2016

¶32

SRI. B.M. SIDDAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R4(A) (V/C) R4(B) SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.)

¶33

THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS 1) BEARING NO. SCPTL 487/1979-80, DATED 23-4-1982, PASSED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT, VIDE ANNEXURE - C AND 2) BEARING NO. SCPTL (A) 139/1984-85, DATED 13-4-2016, PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT, VIDE ANNEXURE - E, AS NULL AND VOID AND ETC.

¶34

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

¶35

ORDER

¶36

The petitioners are before this Court, seeking the

¶37

following reliefs:

¶38

(a) Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned Orders 1) bearing No. SCPTL 487/1979-80, dated 23-4-1982, passed by the 3^rd respondent, vide ANNEXURE - C and 2) bearing No. SCPTL (A) 139/1984-85, dated 13-4-2016, passed by the 2^nd respondent, vide ANNEXURE - E, as null and void.

¶39

(b) Issue such other Order or Direction as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶40

The Assistant Commissioner, Chithradurga District had

¶41

earlier issued a notice to the deceased petitioner No.1 on 07.11.1981 contending that there is violation of the

¶42

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:21359 WP No. 33228 of 2016

¶43

Grant Order made in favour of Sri.Obaiah S/o Kanumaiah and as such, the deceased 1^st petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the said land should not be resumed under Section 5(a) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978.

¶44

The notice having been served, no response has been received from the deceased 1^st petitioner. Hence, the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 23.04.1982 held that there was a Grant in favour of Obaiah on 17.04.1954, which is violated on account of the Sale Deed executed by him in favour of one Mr.Pakirappa on 15.04.1958 and thereafter, the sale in favour of the 1^st petitioner on 03.10.1975, directed resumption of the land.

¶45

The said order of the Assistant Commissioner came to be challenged before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Chithradurga, in SCPTL (A) 139/1984-85, who set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner though on the

¶46

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:21359 WP No. 33228 of 2016

¶47

ground that Sri. Obaiah S/o Kanumaiah was belonging to the Nayaka Community which is not a Schedule Caste as on the date of the grant, but has been included in the category of Scheduled Castes only thereafter, this order came to be challenged by the grantee in W.P.No.3345/2000 and this Court had remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration. The Deputy Commissioner vide impugned Order dated 13.04.2016 being of the opinion that there was a Grant in favour of Sri. Obaiah and the sale being in violation of the said grant, directed resumption of the land which is under challenge before this Court by the purchaser.

¶48

Sri.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though there was initially grant in favour of the father of respondent No.4, the said Grant had been cancelled and thereafter, the land was allotted to respondent No.4 for an upset price of Rs.15/- per acre by referring to the mutation register extract

¶49

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:21359 WP No. 33228 of 2016

¶50

No.09/54-55 dated 28.01.1955, produced at

¶51

Annexure - A to the Writ Petition. His submission is that the grant having been cancelled on account of violation the said cancellation not having been challenged, the allotment of the land being made at an upset price of Rs.15/- per acre which was paid by respondent No.4, thus no Grant is made in favour of a person belonging to depressed class, which could be considered as a grant in terms of Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. On this ground he submits that not only the land being sold at an upset price and there being no prohibition for alienation thereof, that allotee of the land sold the same in the year 1958 vide registered Sale Deed, dated 15.04.1958 in favour of one Mr.Pakirappa, who in turn sold the same to the 1^st petitioner by a registered Sale Deed, dated 03.10.1975. Therefore, the Grant not being made in favour of a person belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and there being no prohibition for

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:21359 WP No. 33228 of 2016

¶54

sale, the sale having been effected cannot be challenged.

¶55

In this regard, he also relies upon the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar, Chithradurga, dated 03.04.1981 produced at Annexure - B to the Writ Petition and submits that the Tahsildar has categorically stated that there is no prohibition for sale of the property and there is no restriction for the same and the Tahsilder has admitted the sale executed in favour of Mr.Pakirappa on 15.04.1958. He submits that these aspects have not been taken into consideration by the Deputy Commissioner. Merely on the ground that an earlier Grant had been made at the property sold and it is a granted land, even though the Grant was not in favour of a person belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Furthermore, the said Grant having been cancelled and land being sold at an upset price, the provision of Section 4 of the PTCL Act would not apply.

¶56

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:21359 WP No. 33228 of 2016

¶57

Sri.B.M.Siddappa, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 would submit that the fact that notice has been issued by the Assistant Commissioner indicating that if is a granted land is sufficient to hold that it is a granted land and is not required for the respondent to produce any Grant Certificate or the like including Saguvali Chits before this Court to establish the Grant.

¶58

He submits that in the Mutation entry No.9/1954-55 it has been categorically stated that there was a Darkasth land and the Grant having been made to a person belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the PTCL Act would be applicable and as such, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is proper and correct. His last submission is that the land which has been granted was a Temporary Grant and has been cancelled and the land allotted which would anyhow go to the benefit of respondent No.4 since there is an admission of Grant that has been made.

¶59

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:21359 WP No. 33228 of 2016

¶60

The above being the dispute between the parties, this Court vide order dated 23.01.2020 had directed for production of the original records to ascertain if there is indeed a Grant made or not. Though belatedly, today the records have been produced and the matter was taken up for hearing.

¶61

Learned Additional Advocate General by referring to the original records submit that Annexure - A which has been produced is a copy of the original records and that there is no Grant Order which is available on the file of the Government. Therefore, no Grant has been made. What has been done is the allotment of the land at an upset price of Rs.15/- per acre which amounts to sale and further that there is no condition imposed prohibiting the sale of the property for any particular time or otherwise. On enquiry as to how the earlier Assistant Commissioner had issued the notice and proceeded with the matter, if there was no Grant she

¶62

10 -

¶63

NC: 2024:KHC:21359 WP No. 33228 of 2016

¶64

submits that there is nothing on record for her to make a submission today.

¶65

Heard and perused the entire materials on record.

¶66

The short question that would arise for consideration is:

¶67

"whether Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act could apply to a land which is not a granted land."

¶68

In the present matter, a perusal of the Mutation register entry No.9/1954-55 would categorically indicate that there was a temporary Grant made in favour of father of respondent No.4, which came to be cancelled and thereafter, the property was allotted at an upset price of Rs.15/- per acre which was so paid by the father of respondent No.4.

¶69

A perusal of the order of Deputy Commissioner dated 08.07.1985 would indicate that the Nayaka Community to which respondent No.4 belongs was not declared as Scheduled Tribes as on 1954 and 1955. If that be so, the alleged grant of land in the year 1954 and 1955 or

¶70

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:21359 WP No. 33228 of 2016

¶71

the allotment thereof at an upset price of Rs.15/- per acre was made to a person belonging to the Scheduled Tribe for the Act to be applicable. Though the said order of the Deputy Commissioner has been set aside, the aspect of the Nayaka Community being included as a Scheduled Tribes being much later is not in dispute.

¶72

The alleged Grant which is said to have been made in favour of the father of respondent No.4, therefore cannot be said to be a Grant made taking into consideration that he belongs to a Scheduled Tribe category. That apart the fact remains that even the Temporary Grant has been cancelled which has not been challenged by respondent No.4 or his father. In fact the allotment of land being made at an upset price of Rs.15/- per acre, the cancellation has been accepted by the father of the respondent No.4, who has paid the upset price and thereafter, enjoyed the property as full owner. Thus the documents on record including the original records which have been produced do not

¶73

12 -

¶74

NC: 2024:KHC:21359 WP No. 33228 of 2016

¶75

establish that it is a Grant made in favour of the father of respondent No.4.

¶76

Even the allotment of land at an upset price of Rs.15/per acre is not accompanied by any condition or prohibition of sale, thus, there was no embargo on the father of respondent No.4 to sell the property in favour of Mr.Pakirappa on 15.04.1958, even if it had been granted land which it is not. There being no such prohibition, the sale on 15.04.1958 being valid and the subsequent sale made by Mr.Pakirappa in favour of the deceased 1^st petitioner on 03.10.1975 cannot also be found fault with. Thus I answer the point raised holding that the PTCL Act would not apply to allotment or Grant of land to a person though belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, if the allotment initially was not made on the grant that he belongs to a Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes category.

¶77

Apart from the above, in the present matter, there has been no grant made and there being no prohibition of

¶78

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:21359 WP No. 33228 of 2016

¶79

sale even on facts, the Assistant Commissioner could not have issued the notice dated 07.11.1981 which granted the above unnecessary litigation which has continued for nearly 40 years, it was required for the Assistant Commissioner to examine, verify and ascertain whether the land was Granted land which would come under the provision of the Act and only thereafter, could have issued notice.

¶80

This issue also arises on account of revenue records not being maintained properly. It is but required for the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department to institute a mechanism making necessary entries in the revenue records so that this kind of situation does not arise.

¶81

In that view of the matter, the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department in conjunction and association with the Principal Secretary, E-Governance Department is directed to ensure that necessary entries as available in the original records have been made in the computerized RTC's, Mutation Registers and also too

¶82

14 - NC: 2024:KHC:21359 WP No. 33228 of 2016

¶83

ensure that all the registers including the Darkasth registers are digitized and make available for the general public as also crossed link by way of hyper linking so that any entry made in the RTC could be accessed referring to the entry made in any other register can be accessed by such hyper link and that the officers of the Revenue Department would be able to ascertain the truthfulness and veracity of the document before initiating any action. A detail project report to be submitted before this Court within four weeks' from today. For all the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:

¶84

:: ORDER ::

¶85

i) The Writ petition is allowed.

¶86

ii) A writ of certiorari is issued and the impugned order bearing No.SCPTL(A) 139/1984-85, dated 13-4-2016, at ANNEXURE - E is hereby quashed.

¶87

15 -

¶88

NC: 2024:KHC:21359 WP No. 33228 of 2016

¶89

iii) Though the above petition is disposed of re-list on 26.07.2024 for report to be submitted by the Principal Secretary.

¶90

iv) Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to bring the above order to the notice of the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and the Principal Secretary E-Governance Department.

¶91

v) The records are returned back to the learned Additional Government Advocate.

¶92

Sd/JUDGE

¶93

RMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53

Sri. Late Sanna Surappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Late Sanna Surappa 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

Smt H N Radha Vs Sri Narasimhegowda

Official Liquidator of M/S United Breweries (Holding) Ltd. (in Liqn) Vs M/S Mysore Fruit Products Pvt. Ltd.

Basavarajappa Vs Navilappa

Sri. Ramaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Tibetan Children Village Vs Sri Muniramu

Smt. Nanjamma Vs State of Karnataka