Narayanappa B E Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER IN NO.RD10LGQ2022 BANGALORE DATED: 21.03.2022, PASSED BY THE R3 VIDE ANNEXURE-P.

¶30

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

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following

¶34

prayer.

¶35

“Wherefore, the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

¶36

a) Issue writ of certiorari by quashing the order in No.RD10LGQ2022 Bangalore dated 21.03.2022, passed by the 3^rd respondent vide Annexure-P.

¶37

b) Grant such other reliefs that this Hon’ble Court deems fit to be grant in the

¶38

3 -

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:21680 WP No. 13508 of 2022

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶42

The facts of the case are the land bearing Sy.No.9 of Shantanpura village, Sulibele Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore, Rural District comprising of 261 acres, 13 guntas, out of which 200 acres were granted to 50 members belonging to SC/ST community during the year 1968-69. The first petitioner was granted 4 acres in Sy.No.9 as per the grant certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Hoskote on 18.05.1969. The grant in favour of the second petitioner was on 13.05.1969 for an extent of 4 acres. It is stated that on 15.07.2013, the second respondent issued a letter to the third respondent alleging that the land to an extent of 200 acres, out of 261.13 acres in Sy.No.9 was granted in favour of 50 members, 4 acres each and 2 acres each to 4 persons and 3 acres each to 2 persons. In all total 214 acres was granted and during the year 1977-78 another extent of 46 acres, 12 guntas were granted in favour of 12 members. During the year 1970-71 all the 50 members who obtained the grant, violated the conditions and sold the land in favour of some other persons. During the year 1990, the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura initiated the

¶43

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:21680 WP No. 13508 of 2022

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

proceedings under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short ‘PTCL Act’). It is stated that the MLA of Hoskote wrote a letter dated 06.06.2013 to the Hon'ble Minister, Revenue Department requesting to take action against 50 persons, who sold the lands by creating bogus documents in favour of certain persons and directed the Deputy Commissioner to visit the spot and conduct an enquiry and to take action against them. An inquiry was conducted and the report was forwarded. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner has cancelled the illegal alienation made by the grantees and restored the lands in favour of the original grantees. It is stated that though Assistant Commissioner restored the lands in favour of 50 grantees, again 6 members have resold the property and it is directed to initiate proceedings against 6 persons under the PTCL Act. It is stated that similar complaint was given to the respondent. Based on the same, the respondents have issued impugned order dated 21.03.2022, whereby the Government has directed the ACB to conduct inquiry into these aspects. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:21680 WP No. 13508 of 2022

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

¶50

submits that when a similar inquiry earlier was conducted and the illegal sales were cancelled and the property was restored to the original grantees, with the same allegations, the matter was referred to the ACB. It is submitted that the because of the political rivalry, this action was initiated by the Government. It is submitted that as far as the writ petition is concerned, earlier inquiry has attained finality and there cannot be any further inquiry against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of the Court to the earlier order that is passed and the statement that is made on the floor of the house and based on that it is submitted that on political reasons this step was initiated and it is nothing but a pure abuse of process of law. It is submitted that the order impugned as far as the petitioners is concerned needs to be set aside.

¶51

Learned AGA appearing on behalf of the

¶52

respondents submits that there is a vast extent of 261 acres and odd and basing on the complaint receipt with regard to the irregularities, the Government has directed the ACB to conduct

¶53

6 -

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:21680 WP No. 13508 of 2022

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

inquiry. It is submitted that by such inquiry, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the report, the petitioner can challenge the same. But at this stage, when it is concerning a larger extent, petitioners cannot be aggrieved persons and they cannot come before this Court.

¶57

Having heard the learned counsels on either side,

¶58

perused the material on record. According to the petitioners, they belonged to the SC community and a grant was given in favour of the petitioners. Earlier when they have sold the property in violation of the terms of allotment, again the Assistant Commissioner has conducted inquiry and restored the land to them. The whole ambit of the inquiry is when the land is allotted to the SC/ST people and when there is a bar on transfer of the property, the person are time and again selling the property and also with regard to the encroachment, the ACB inquiry is ordered. At any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the petitioners are affected by such an inquiry. Petitioners can always avail the further action, if they are aggrieved. This Court is not able to appreciate the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners. In that view of the

¶59