IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION Nos.3260-3261/2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. G. B. RANGAIAH, S/O LATE BYATARANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 2. SMT. GANGALAKSHMAMMA, W/O G. B. RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, PETITIONERS 1 & 2 ARE RESIDING AT NO. 963, 5TH ‘A’ CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD, RAJAGOPAL NAGAR, PEENYA-II STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 058. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VARADARAJAN M. S., ADV.) AND:
1. THE TAHSILDAR, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, KANDAYA BHAVEN, K. G. ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009.
2. S. GOPALAKRISHNA, S/O M. NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, C/O.RAMAIAH, NO.580, 8TH ‘A’ CROSS, 5TH MAIN ROAD, RAJAGOPALANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 058. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K. P. YOGANNA, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. P. NISHAN UNNI, ADV. FOR R-2.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 23.12.2016 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioners are before this Court assailing the order dated 23.12.2016 impugned at Annexure-A to the petitions.
2. The petitioners claim certain right in respect of the property bearing Site No.655, Laggere Village, Rajagopalanagar, Yashwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The grievance put forth in these petitions is that, though such right is available to the petitioners, the respondent No.1, without competence or without any jurisdiction to pass the order impugned at Annexure-A has directed that the petitioners should put the respondent No.2 in possession of the said property. It is in that light, the petitioners claiming to be aggrieved are before this Court in these petitions.
3. The respondent No.2 has filed the objection statement contending that the petitioners belong to scheduled caste community. In that light, it is contended that the property in question which was granted to their predecessors could not have been sold, as the same is violative of the provisions contained in the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (‘PTCL Act’ for short). It is further contended that the petitioners have made an application seeking action and the Deputy Commissioner had through the communication dated 10.06.2016 forwarded the same to the competent authority and it is in that light, the order at Annexure-A has been passed. In that regard, the respondent No.2 seeks to contend that since, the respondent No.2 has right to secure back the possession of the property, the order is justified.
4. In the light of the above, having taken note of the very claim as put forth by the respondent No.2, it is seen that, if there is violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act, the proceedings therein is required to be initiation under Section 4 of the PTCL Act and the Assistant Commissioner being the competent authority is required to consider the same in accordance with law, after providing opportunity to the parties concerned.
5. Therefore, if in that background, the order dated 23.12.2016 impugned at Annexure-A is perused, the same is neither by the competent authority under the PTCL Act nor was passed after following due process thereto. That apart, what is also to be taken note is that, even as per the communication dated 10.06.2016 addressed by the Deputy Commissioner to the Assistant Commissioner and the Tahsildar, what is referred to therein is to take further action in respect of a representation dated 06.06.2016 said to have been submitted by a registered organization and not by the respondent No.2. In that light also, the said representation would not arise for consideration under the PTCL Act since, the right as claimed by the respondent No.2 is to be established therein.
6. To that extent, the respondent No.2 is reserved the liberty of filing an appropriate application as provided under Section 4 of the PTCL Act, if any right therein is claimed by the respondent No.2. Though, such right is available to the respondent No.2, for the reasons as indicated above, the order impugned dated 23.12.2016 in the manner as has been passed at present would not be justified. In that view, the order dated 23.12.2016 is quashed. Liberty to the parties in the manner as indicated above is reserved. All contentions of the parties are left open to be urged in the appropriate proceedings.
The petitions are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST