Disposed

Sri Abdul Sab S/O Late Abdul Rehaman Sab v. the Thasildar

Karnataka HC12 Nov 2024WP/7153/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, legal representatives of a tenant granted land by the Land Tribunal in 1981, challenged the 15-year non-alienation clause in their Form-10 occupancy certificate issued only in 2019. The Court declined to strike down the clause but held it runs from the Tribunal's order date, directed mutation and issuance of No Objection Certificate for alienation.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to enter petitioners' names in revenue records within two months and issue NOC for alienation, calculating the non-alienation period from 26.11.1981.

Sri Abdul Sab S/O Late Abdul Rehaman Sab Vs the Thasildar — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:45778 WP No. 7153 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.7153 OF 2023 (LR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI ABDUL SAB S/O LATE ABDUL REHAMAN SAB

¶8

SMT. KHAIRUNNISA W/O LATE ABDULLA SAB, SINCE DECEASED BY THEIR LRS

¶9

SRI MAQBUL JAN, S/O LATE ABDULLA SAB, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, OCC-AGRICULTURIST,

¶10

Digitally signed by CHAITHANYA K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

SRI ANWAR BASHA S/O LATE ABDULLA SAB AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS OCC-AGRICULTURIST,

¶12

SRI FAROOQ S/O LATE ABDULLA SAB, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC-AGRICULTURIST,

¶13

SRI AFROZ PASHA S/O LATE ABDULLA SAB, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC-AGRICULTURIST,

¶14

SMT. MUNNEERA D/O. LATE ABDULLA SAB, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:45778 WP No. 7153 of 2023

¶16

OCC-HOUSE WIFE, ALL ARE RESIDING AT R/AT NO.66, ANNA NAGARA CHANAL, PAKKA RIGHT SIDE ANNA NAGAR, SHIMOGGA, SHIMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 201.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI PRAKASH M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE THASILDAR SHIVAMOGGA SWHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 201.

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SRI HARISH A.S., AGA)

¶23

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE CLAUSE-9 IN THE FORM-10 CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF OCCUPANCY RIGHTS VIDE ANNEXURE-A DATED 21.06.2019 IN NO.LR.F(T)HPL 23/74-75 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN, ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:45778 WP No. 7153 of 2023

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The lands which are the subject matter of the writ petition were granted in favour of one Late Mr.Abdul Sab by an order dated 26.11.1981 of the Land Tribunal (Annexure-'B' to the writ petition). The petitioners are said to be legal representatives of the said Late Abdul Sab. However, the occupancy certificate under Form No.10 has been issued only on 21.06.2019. The petitioners have made necessary application to have the revenue entries mutated in their names before the Authorities concerned and the formalities are yet to be completed. In the meanwhile, petitioners are desirous of alienating the properties, but however, as there is a condition prescribed in the occupancy certificate that they should not alienate the properties for a period of 15 years, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition with a prayer to strike down the clause which prevents them from alienating the properties for a period of 15 years. However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if permission were to be granted to the petitioners to alienate the properties, they would be satisfied and they would not insist upon a prayer to strike down the said clause.

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:45778 WP No. 7153 of 2023

¶30

Property under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 is granted to the tenant and it is a social welfare legislation. It is so granted, so as to facilitate the grantee to make a living by cultivating the land and not for indulging in speculative purposes. For the said reason, there is a restriction imposed wherein the grantee is restrained from alienating the granted property for a period of 15 years. The said restriction is valid in law and there is no reason why the same has to be struck down.

¶31

However, the grant in favour of the tenant is made by the Land Tribunal and issuance of occupancy certificate under Form No.10 is only a ministerial function carried out by the Tahsildar. Thus, in my opinion, the non-alienation clause has to be considered from the date when the petitioners got a right over the properties concerned, which in this case is on 26.11.1981. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SANGAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2002 KAR 3603 wherein in paragraph No.9 held as under:-

¶32

"9. These two judgments and the objects of the amendment Act support the contention of the respondent.

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:45778 WP No. 7153 of 2023

¶34

In the circumstances, 'I am of the view that the date for the purpose of prohibition is to be the date of the order of the Tribunal and not the date of the Certificate. If the date of the order of the Tribunal, namely 24.1.1977, is taken into consideration, then the sale in 1993 is beyond the period of 15 years. Therefore, the sale is not hit by Section 61(1). The Tribunal therefore is justified in rejecting the contention of the petitioner."

¶35

In the instant case, as 15 years has already elapsed since the order passed by the Tribunal has attained finality, it would be appropriate to direct the Authorities concerned, to consider the request of the petitioners for entering their names in the revenue records and thereafter, permit them to alienate the properties concerned calculating 15 years from the date of the order of the Tribunal i.e., 26.11.1981. Hence, the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

i. Respondent is directed to consider the case of

¶38

the petitioners in accordance with law to enter the names of the petitioners in the revenue records in respect of the lands which are the subject matter of the writ petition and do the needful within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:45778 WP No. 7153 of 2023

¶40

¶41

copy of this order and thereafter, issue them the necessary No Objection Certificate to alienate the properties by calculating 15 years non-alienation period from 26.11.1981 (i.e., the date of the order of the Tribunal).

¶42

ii. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶43

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶44

VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

Sri Abdul Sab S/O Late Abdul Rehaman Sab v. the Thasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Abdul Sab S/O Late Abdul Rehaman Sab v. the Thasildar

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

Tata Coffee Limited Vs State of Karnataka

T G Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri P Manjappa Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S K Gowda and Co. Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

Sri C Ramaiah Reddy Vs Uinion of India

Sri Jagadeeshchandra Hegde Vs State of Karnataka