IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.15602/2017 (SC-ST) BETWEEN INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD, BANGALORE DIVISION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER, SRI R. KARTIK , AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.29, P. KALINGARAO ROAD, BANGALORE-27. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI R.GOPALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. MUNIYAPPA, S/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, SINCE DEAD BY LR’S 1(a) MUNIRATHNAMMA , D/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 1(b) SMT. NAGAMMA, D/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 1(c) NARASIMHAPPA, S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 2. RAMANJANI, S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT POOJANA HALLI, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT-560 300.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, V.V.TOWERS, BANGALORE – 560 001.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, V V TOWERS, BANGALORE – 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A.G.SHIVANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SMT.SAVITHRAMMA, HCGP FOR R3 & R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT ON ORDERS ON IMPLEADING APPLICATION DT.17.1.2017 ON HIS FILE VIDE ANNXURE-F TO THE W.P AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Appellant in LND.SC/ST.(A) 04/2010-11 on the file of Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, has come up in this writ petition impugning the order dated 17.1.2017, vide Annexure-F, passed on an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC in aforesaid proceedings.
2. The brief facts leading to this writ petition are that petitioner herein is a Government of India undertaking. It has purchased certain extent of land, which is converted from agriculture to non agricultural industrial purpose. According to petitioner, said land was purchased after the same was duly converted for aforesaid purpose. It is stated that subsequent to sale of land in favour of petitioner, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are said to have initiated proceedings seeking restoration of said land on the ground that sale made in favour of petitioner is in contravention of the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (PTCL Act for short), hence they are entitled to seek resumption of said land. It is further stated that said proceeding has culminated in an order being passed by 3rd respondent in restoring the land in question in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2, which was the subject matter of an appeal before 4th respondent – Deputy Commissioner by petitioner herein.
3. It is stated that in the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner, petitioner herein had filed an application to bring the earlier agreement holder for purchase of land from respondent Nos.1 and 2 on record on the premise that sale which is made in favour of petitioner is by respondent Nos.1 and 2 is with the assistance of said person in getting the same converted from agriculture to non agricultural industrial purpose for the benefit of petitioner. Therefore, the proceedings initiated by respondent Nos.1 and 2 seeking resumption of land has no basis and there is no violation of the provisions of PTCL Act, inasmuch what was conveyed to petitioner by respondent Nos.1 and 2 is non agricultural converted land and therefore, the presence of said person is required in the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner. It is further stated that said application is opposed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner dismissed said application. Hence, they have come up in the present writ petition seeking to allow the said impleading application and to bring the impleading applicant on record for the limited purpose of establishing that the land in question is converted from agriculture to non agricultural industrial purpose prior to the date of conveying it in its name.
4. When this writ petition came up before the Court for consideration, this Court directed Sri.A.G.Shivanna, the learned Additional Advocate General to secure original records from the office of competent authority, who is authorized to convert the land in question from agriculture to non agricultural industrial purpose. Accordingly, this day, said document is produced by the learned Government Advocate through Additional Advocate General, which clearly indicate that on an application by respondent Nos.1 and 2, the land in question is already converted from agriculture to non agricultural industrial purpose and what is conveyed by them to petitioner is converted land and not agricultural land. In that view of the matter, this Court feel that question of setting aside the order dated 17.1.2017 in rejecting the impleading application filed by the petitioner does not arise for consideration for the simple reason that what is required to be established by petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner is whether the land purchased by it is agricultural land or converted land, is clearly established by the conversion order produced before this Court, this day. The same would clearly indicate that respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein through their agent have got the land in question converted from agriculture to non agricultural industrial purpose and thereafter, conveyed the same to petitioner herein.
5. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to pursue the proceedings in Appeal No.LND.SC/ST(A).04/2010-11 pending before the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District.
Sd/- JUDGE nd/-