IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.41762/2016 (SC-ST) AND WRIT PETITION No.13491/2017 Between:
1. H. Roopa Devi D/o. S. Hanumanna Aged about 33 years 2. H. Lohith S/o. S. Hanumanna Aged about 31 years 3. H. Mahesh S/o. S. Hanumanna Aged about 29 years All are r/at No.246, Kasavanahalli Village, Carmelaram Post, Bangalore.
(By Sri. Manjunath V, Advocate) And:
1. The Deputy Commissioner Bangalore District, Bangalore 560 001.
… Petitioners 2. The Assistant Commissioner Bangalore North Sub-Division, Bangalore 560 001.
3. Smt. Bhagya W/o. K. R. Rajashekara Reddy, Major R/o. Kaikodrahalli Village Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore 560 035.
4. K. R. Rajashekara Reddy S/o. Ramareddy, Major R/o. Kaikodrahalli Village Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore 560 035.
5. M. Ramakrishna Reddy S/o. B. Muniswamy Reddy Major, Shrekutira, No. 607, 22nd A Main, HSR Layout, Sector – II, Bangalore 560 102.
6. K. Vijayakumar S/o. Late K. Krishnappa, Major, R/o. No.18, 9th Cross, Kumara Park West, Bangalore 560 020.
(By Smt. Savithramma, HCGP for R1 & R2 Sri. Harish H. V., Adv. for C/R3 to R5 Sri. Manmohan P. N., Adv. for R6) … Respondents These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India, praying to quash the order passed by the 1st respondent in Appeal No. SCST(A)- 09/13-14 and SCST(A)24/2013-2014 dated 30.04.2016 vide Annexure-B to this writ petition and etc.
These Writ Petitions having been heard and reserved on 12.07.2019 and coming on for pronouncement of orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioners have challenged the orders passed by respondent No.1 allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the 2nd respondent who had allowed the application of the petitioners seeking resumption of granted land and its restoration.
2. The petitioners herein had filed an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act 1978, asserting that the land measuring 1.00 acre in Survey No.87 of Kasavanahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk was granted to Chikkamuniga. It is asserted that the petitioners’ father Hanumanna had purchased the Land from Smt. Muniyamma W/o Chikkamuniga by sale deed dated 05.03.1992, that the 6th respondent had purchased the land from the father of the petitioners by sale deed No. 2982/1995-96 dated 13.07.1995. Accordingly, as the property that was granted was sold without permission from the Government, it was contended that the land was to be restored in favour of the petitioners.
3. The Assistant Commissioner accepting the version of the petitioners in its entirety allowed the petition.
4. The matter was taken up in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner by way of appeal under Section 5-A of the Act.
5. The Deputy Commissioner while allowing the appeal has recorded a finding that the land measuring 1.00 acre in Sy.No.87 was granted to Yellamma w/o Muniga in the year 1927. The first sale was effected in the year 1937. It was also observed that there was a delay of more than 30 years from the date of transaction till the date of coming into force of the Act and hence the application seeking restoration of land was not maintainable.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No.5 have filed their synopsis/written arguments and were heard in the matter.
7. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that land bearing Sy.No.87 was granted to Chikkamuniga in the year 1927 and was alienated by the petitioners’ father in favour of the respondent No.6 on 13.07.1995. However, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent has specifically contended that the land was granted to Yelli W/o. Muniga in the year 1927 with respect to the extent of land in Sy.No.24/11 (new No.87). As regards the original grant that had been made, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent - State on a specific query has produced copy of the index of land which indicates the entry in the name of Yelli W/o Muniga. The entry in Column No.8 of the Index of Land Register, an extract of which has been produced alongwith a memo dated 19.07.2019 indicates grant in the year 1927-1928. There are no other records forthcoming regarding the grant. A perusal of the petition filed by the petitioners before the Assistant Commissioner at paragraph Nos.2 and 5 would reveal that the petitioners’ father had purchased the land from Muniyamma through a registered sale deed vide No.5739/91-92 dated 05.03.1992 (copy of petition produced as Annexure-R1 to the statement of objections). The written arguments filed by the petitioners before the Assistant Commissioner at paragraph Nos.8 and 9 is also on the same lines.
8. In light of the above and also the specific stand by the learned counsel for the State, the premise that the land is granted land on the basis of which the petitioners lay their claim itself cannot be accepted.
9. The petitioners’ father has purchased the property through a sale deed dated 29.02.1992 from Muniyamma w/o late Munishamappa, a copy of which has been produced by learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5. The said Muniyamma is stated to have purchased the land through a sale deed dated 09.08.1971 by Seekalappa. The said Seekalappa has in turn purchased the property through a sale deed dated 02.06.1971 from K.Narayan Reddy. By way of a sale deed dated 13.02.1967, Seekalappa had sold the property to Narayan Reddy. Seekalappa in turn had purchased the property from Chikkakalamma w/o Chikkamuniga through a sale deed dated 13.02.1967. In turn, the said Chikkamuniga has purchased the property from Yellamma w/o Muniga by way of a sale deed dated 28.05.1937. Copies of the said sale deeds have been produced by learned counsel for the respondent no.5 and hence it is contended that the tracing of title is eventually from Yelli w/o Muniga in whose favour grant has been made. The said version would fall in place and is to be accepted while taking note of the entry in the Record of Rights wherein the reference to the original grant in favour of Yelli w/o Muniga is found. The finding of the Deputy Commissioner, hence, cannot be faulted.
10. If the petitioners are in fact claiming title through a sale deed as made out, the question of applicability of provisions of the Act would not arise as the land cannot be held to be a ‘granted land’ in terms of Section 3(b) of the Act. Hence, in light of the grant being made in favour of Yelli w/o Muniga which is also the stand taken by the learned HCGP for the State and in the absence of any other records which point to the contrary, the stand taken by the Deputy Commissioner is to be accepted. Such a finding after appreciation of material on record which is also supported by the learned counsel appearing for the State deserves to be accepted. In light of the finding that the petitioners’ father has derived title through a sale deed and grant was made in favour of Yelli W/o Muniga which is contrary to the assertion of the petitioners, no case is made out by the petitioners. In light of the finding relating to the basis of the claim by the petitioners, question of adverting to the other contentions does not arise.
11. In light of the said finding recorded by the Deputy Commissioner in appeal, no ground is made out for interference with the order. I find no illegality or perversity in the finding of the Deputy Commissioner warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Hence, the writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE VGR