IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN WRIT PETITION No.22027 of 2012 (SC/ST) BETWEEN SMT. MUTYALAMMA, W/O LATE MUNIKADIRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RESIDING AT A.K. COLONY, SHIDLAGHATTA TOWN, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT.
(BY SRI ADINARAYANA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT, CHICKBALLAPUR.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT, CHICKBALLAPUR.
3. A. NARAYANA SWAMY, S/O AVULAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NAYANAHALLI, NANDI HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT.
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, HCGP FOR R1 & R2;
...PETITIONER … RESPONDENTS SRI VISHWANATH R. HEGDE, ADVOCATE for R3) THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.03.2012 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN R.A.SC/ST.14 of 2009-2010 AS ANNEXURE-A AND REVERSE THE FINDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND UPHELD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN PTCL (CB)190 of 2007-2008 ORDER DATED 13.07.2009 AT ANNEXURE-M AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This writ petition is filed by the legal heir of the original grantee assailing the order dated 28.03.2012 passed in R.A:SC/ST.14/2009-10 by respondent No.1- Deputy Commissioner, Chickballapur District, vide Annexure-A setting aside the order of resumption dated 13.07.2009 passed in PTCL(CB) 190/2007-08 by respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner on the application filed by the petitioner.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned High Court Government Pleader.
3. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that the land measuring 2 acres 12 guntas in Sy.No.37 of Nayanahalli Village, Nandi Hobli, Chickballapur District, was granted to the husband of the petitioner on 12.03.1984 vide order in HOA.Talari.15/1979-80. Thereafter, the said property was sold to respondent No.3 on 17.02.1997. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner for resumption of the land under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ( ‘PTCL Act’ for short). After considering the case of the petitioner, the Assistant Commissioner vide order at Annexure-M allowed the application and resumed the said land in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 13.07.2009. Assailing the same, respondent No.3 herein filed an appeal under Section 5A of the PTCL Act before the Deputy Commissioner. After hearing the arguments, the Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal and set aside the order of resumption passed by the Assistant Commissioner only on the ground that the land in question has been granted to the husband of the petitioner under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, but not under the PTCL Act. Therefore, the order of resumption has been set aside by order dated 28.3.2012. Assailing the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Deputy Commissioner has committed error in allowing the appeal even though the Assistant Commissioner after enquiry, rightly passed the order of resumption. Hence, he prayed for allowing the petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the order of the Deputy Commissioner. Learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that petition is required to be filed under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, but not under the PTCL Act.
6. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and perusal of Annexure-D, the grant order, which shows that the land was granted with No.HOA.Talari.15/79-80, dated 21.02.1984. The petitioner has filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner claiming that her husband was a Talari and the land has been granted to him in view of the village office held by her husband. The same is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. The order under Annexure-M reveals that the land has been granted under Section 5 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961. The land granted itself shows that the land in question has been re-granted to the husband of the petitioner under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, but not under Section 3 of the PTCL Act. Considering the same, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly referred to Section 3 (1)(b) of the PTCL Act, which defines the ‘Granted Land’, as under:
“ ‘Granted Land’ means any land granted by the government to a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and includes land allotted or granted to such person under the relevant law for the time being in force relating to agrarian reforms or land ceilings or abolition of inams, other than that relating to hereditary offices or rights and the word “Granted” shall be construed accordingly.”
Admittedly, the land has been granted on the ground that the husband of the petitioner has held the hereditary office as Talari, which was abolished under the Act namely, the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961. Such being the case, the petitioner ought to have filed an application under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, but not under the PTCL Act. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner, which was passed under the PTCL Act as it is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. Therefore, considering the fact that the land in question was not covered under Section 3 of the PTCL Act, there is exclusion of the land allotted in the hereditary office held by the person or grantee. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner does not call for interference. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file a petition under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE mv