IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.6379 OF 2017 (SC/ST) Between:
1. Smt. Muniyamma W/o Late Muniyappa Aged about 85 years 2. Sri Muniyamma W/o Late Chikkahonnaga Aged about 75 years 3. Sri Muniyamma W/o Late Narayanappa Aged about 65 years 4. Sri J.N. Muniraju S/o Late Narayanappa Aged about 39 years 5. Sri Mylarappa S/o Late Narayanappa Aged about 37 years 6. Sri Muniyappa S/o. Late Honnappa @ Honnaga Aged about 68 years 7. Sri Poojappa S/o. late Honnappa @ Honnaga Aged about 65 years 8. Sri Narayanaswamy S/o Late Honnappa @ Honnaga Aged about 60 years All are residing at Jangamakote Sidlaghatta Taluk-562 105.
Chikkaballapur Taluk. …Petitioners (By Sri. V.F. Kumbar, Advocate) And:
1. The Deputy Commissioner Chikkaballapur District Chikkaballapur-562 101.
2. The Assistant Commissioner Chikkaballapur Sub-Division Chikkaballapur-562 101.
3. Sri Narendra Kumar Mohta S/o Ramarathnam Aged about 62 years No.222/14, 2nd Main Sadashivanagar, Bengaluru Represented by its GPA holder Sri D.S. Suresh Babu S/o Srikantaiah Behind Ganesh Temple Girinagar, Bengaluru-560 085.
4. Sri Dhruv Mohta S/o Narendra Kumar Mohta Aged about 36 years Rack Enclave Sadashivanagar Bengaluru-560 080.
5. Sri L.C. Krishna S/o. Channegowda Aged about 50 years H.N. 729, Sector-4 Panchkula, Hariyana-134 112.
6. Sri V. Basavaraj S/o Veerabhadrappa Aged about 55 years R/at Jangamakote Village and Hobli Sidlaghatta Taluk-562 105. …Respondents (By Smt. Savithramma, HCGP for R1 and R2; Smt. Manjula.N.V. for Sri S.B. Srinivasa, Advocate for R6, R3 and R4 served, notice to R5 held sufficient.) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order passed by the respondent No.1 at Annexure-J in R.A. No.75/2016-2017 dated 09.01.2017 and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R In this writ petition, the petitioners have questioned the order dated 09.01.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chickballapur District in R.A.No.75/2016-17 vide Annexure-J.
2. The case of the petitioner is that land bearing old survey number 37 new survey number 51 of Devaganahalli, Jangamakote hobli, Sidlaghatta taluk, Chickballapur district measuring 6 acres 15 guntas was granted in favour of Kommonu, who is the ancestor of the petitioners as per the grant order dated 27.03.1935.
3. Further case of the petitioners is that, at no point of time, the legal heirs’ rights, title and interest over the said property are sold to any persons. One Siddaveeramma who was not legal heir of original grantee has sold the above said property to respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Hence, the petitioners have filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Land) Act, 1978 (for short, ‘PTCL Act’) to restore the land in dispute in favour of petitioners. The Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 29.08.2016 has allowed the application filed by the petitioners and restored the land in their favour. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent No.6 V.Basavaraj claiming that the land in question was granted to one Veerabhadrappa, by Government order dated 09.11.1938 and the legal representative of Veerabhadrappa has executed the power of attorney in favour of respondent No.6 and on that ground, he has filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner in Appeal R.A.No.75/2016-17. The Deputy Commissioner in view of the dispute regarding the grant in respect of land in question, has remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.
4. Sri V.F. Kumbar, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the land in dispute has originally been granted in favour of ancestor of the petitioners on 27.03.1935. At no point of time, right, title and interest of legal heirs of original grantee over the said property are sold in anybody’s favour. One Siddaveeramma who has no right, title over the said property, has sold the property by a registered sale deed dated 10.04.2006. Hence, the petitioners have filed application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Land) Act, 1978 to restore the land in dispute in favour of petitioners. The Deputy Commissioner without considering all these aspects has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No.6 without issuing notice to the petitioners, remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration. Hence, he sought for allowing the petition.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents and also HCGP have submitted that the petitioners have raised the issue that legal representatives of the original grantee have not sold the land in question. Further, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 has submitted that the land in dispute was originally granted to C.Veerabhadrappa and the legal representatives of C.Veerabhadrappa have executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of respondent No.6- V. Basavaraj and he has a right, title and interest over the property. Without making V. Basavaraj as party, the Assistant Commissioner has passed an order by allowing the application filed by the petitioners and restored the land in their favour. He also contended that being aggrieved by the said order, V. Basavarj-respondent No.6 has filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. It is not in dispute that the land bearing old survey number 37 new survey number 51 of Devaganahalli, Jangamakote hobli, Sidlaghatta taluk, Chickballapur district is a granted land. The contention of the petitioners is that the land granted in favour of one Kommanu who is the ancestor of petitioners. Respondent No.6- V. Basavarju who is claiming through C. Veerabhadrappa on the ground that land has been granted in favour of C. Veeerabhadrappa.
8. In view of the above controversy, I am of the opinion that the Deputy Commissioner has rightly remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration. After giving opportunity to the parties, the petitioners as well as respondents can raise all their contentions before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner can consider all the contentions raised by the parties and pass the order in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. All the contentions of the parties are left open and the parties are at liberty to file additional documents and the Assistant Commissioner shall consider the same and pass the orders in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE SSD