IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL WRIT PETITION Nos.31264-31265 OF 2017 (SCST) BETWEEN:
1. Mr.Narayanappa, Age 60 years, S/o.Late Vykunta Bovi.
2. Mr.Mohanbabu, Age: 27 years, S/o.Mr.Narayanappa.
Both are R/o.Sadahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District – 562 110. .. Petitioners (By Sri.C.V.Manjunatha, Advocate) AND:
1. The Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District, Phodium Block, Rajbhavan Road, Bangalore – 560 001.
2. The Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura Sub-Division, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bangalore Rural District – 561 203.
3. Mrs.Asha J.Colaco, Age: 48 years, W/o.Mr.John R.Colaco.
4. Mr.F.B.L.Colaco, Since deceased By his legal heir Mr.Ronald Colaco, Age: 59 years, S/o.Late F.B.L.Colaco.
5. Mr.John Robert Colaco, Age: 54 years, S/o.Late F.B.L.Colaco, 6. Mrs.Judith L.Colaco, Age: 53 years, W/o.Mr.Ronald Colaco.
Respondents 3 to 6 are R/o.Hollywood Town, Sadahalli Post, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District – 562 110. .. Respondents (By Sri.Dildar Shiralli, GP for R1 & R2: Sri H.N.M.Prasad, Advocate for R3 to R6) These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 4.4.2017 passed by the R1 vide Annexure-R and to quash the common order dated 15.7.2016 passed by the R2 vide Annexure-M and etc., These writ petitions, coming on for orders, this day, the court made the following:
ORDER These writ petitions are filed challenging the order dated 04.04.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners herein under Section 5A (1A) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short ‘SCST (PTCL Act)’). By the impugned order, the Deputy Commissioner has confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur Sub-division, Doddaballapur in rejecting the claim made by the petitioners for restoration of land bearing Sy.No.86 Block No.2 and Sy.No.86 Block No.3, each measuring 4 acres situated at Ilthore Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk , Bengaluru Rural District.
2. Learned counsel for respondents 3 to 6 relies on judgment of the Apex Court in the case of B.K.MUNIRAJU vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS (AIR 2008 SC 1438), particularly on the observations made in paragraph 12 to contend that as the land was sold in public auction, the land cannot be treated as a granted land.
3. The short question that falls for consideration in this case is whether the lands in question were granted lands in terms of the provisions contained under Section 3(1)(b) of the SCST (PTCL) Act so as to fall within the ambit of the provisions of the Act, thereby clothing the petitioners with a right to seek restoration of the same in terms of Section 5 of the Act.
4. Both the authorities have examined the matter at length. They have recorded a finding that the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur Sub-Division had issued an Official Memorandum dated 23.11.1971 directing the Tahasildar, Devanahalli to conduct public auction among eligible persons as per the provisions of the Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1888 in respect of three blocks of 4 acres each of Government barren land in Sy.No.86 of Ilthore Village of Devanahalli Taluk. It was stated therein that minimum auction price had been fixed by the Deputy Commissioner at Rs.25/- per acre for the lands. Pursuant thereof, as per the official memorandum, dated 20.12.1971 of the Tahasildar, Devanahalli an amount of Rs.37.50 per acre was collected from the auction purchaser. Indeed there was a document duly signed by the erstwhile Patel, landlord and Revenue Inspector which recorded that the market price of the land was Rs.25/- per acre.
5. Thus, it is evidenced that in the auction that took place on 14.12.1971 late Vykunta Bovi, father of the first petitioner and Srinivas Bovi, brother of the first petitioner purchased 4 acres each by paying Rs.37.50 per acre.
Accordingly, they became the absolute owners of the property in question. It is in this background, by examining the entire records, including the saguvali register extract, durkast register and the entire file pertaining to the auction conducted, both the authorities, that is, Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have come to the conclusion that there was no grant of Government land in favour of the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes so as to attract the provisions contained under the SCST (PTCL) Act and it was a case of public auction conducted wherein two persons participated along with the others and having emerged highest and successful bidders the lands in question were sold to them.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 is right and justified in placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court.
7. In the wake of all these findings recorded after appreciating the documents on record it cannot be characterized as illegal or baseless. The findings are just and proper as they are consistent with the materials on record. Hence there is absolutely no room for this Court for interference. Petitions are dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Cm/-