IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN WRIT PETITION No.11374 OF 2010 (SC-ST) BETWEEN SRI. K. K. DINESH S/O LATE K. M. KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YRS R/AT KATTEKYATHANHALLY VILLAGE AKKIHEBBAL HOBLI, K. R. PETE TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI. VISHWANATH A, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B. S. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION PANDAVAPURA, MANDYA DISTRICT.
3. THE TAHSILDAR K. R. PETE TQ, K. R. PETE MANDYA DISTRICT.
4. SRI. B. N. GOVINDARAJU S/O NARASHIMHA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS DEAD BY HIS LRs.
4(A) SRI. B. G. RAVI AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS S/O LATE B. N. GOVINDARAJU BASAVANAHALLY VILLAGE AKKIHEBBAL HOBLI K. R. PETE TALUK-571426 MANDYA DISTRICT.
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3 NOTICE TO R4 & R4(A) IS HELD SUFFICIENT) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH BOTH THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2009 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN CASE NO.PTCL 84/2001- 02 AT ANNEXURE B AND THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2001 MADE IN PTCL NO.03/2001-02 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AT ANNEXURE A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING.
ORDER The petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order dated 13.11.2001, passed by respondent No.2- Assisstant Commissioner, Pandavapura Sub-Division, Pandavapura, at Annexure-A and order dated 24.03.2009, passed by respondent No.1- Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District, at Annexure-B, by allowing the application filed by respondent No.4 under Section 5-A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PTCL Act’, for short) for resumption and restoration of the granted land in Sy.No.166, measuring 3 acres, situated Allambady village, Akkihebbal Hobli, K.R.Pet Taluk, Mandya District.
2. It is the case of the petitioner is that the Government vide order dated 18.03.1980 had granted the land measuring 3 acres to respondent No.4, under Section 3(1)(b) of the ‘PTCL Act’ and respondent No.4 was in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The petitioner said to have lent the loan for a sum of Rs.6,500/- to respondent No.4. In order to recover the said loan amount, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.88/1987, which came to be decreed. The execution petition also came to be filed in Ex.P.No.9/1988. Under the execution proceedings, the civil Court put the granted property in auction sale and accordingly, the auction sale was conducted on 21.03.1995. Under the said auction sale, the very petitioner himself had purchased the said property for valuable sale consideration of Rs.15,000/- and since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 filed an application under Section 5 of the ‘PTCL Act’ for resumption and restoration of the land, before respondent No.2 thereafter, respondent No.2 had issued notice to the petitioner and after enquiry, respondent No.2 allowed the application filed by the respondent No.4 and set-aside the sale deed got executed to the petitioner under auction sale through the execution proceedings of the civil Court and restored the land to the original grantee, deceased respondent No.4. Assailing the order passed by respondent No.2, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.1 under Section 5A of the ‘PTCL Act’, which came to be dismissed and uphold the order passed by respondent No.1. Assailing the orders of both the respondent-authorities, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-authorities.
4. Legal representative of the deceased respondent No.4 i.e., respondent No.4(a) has been served, but there is no representation and remained absent.
5. Sri. Vishwanath A., learned counsel appearing for Sri.B. S. Nagaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner has seriously contended that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser of the land in question through the auction sale conducted by the civil Court. It is further submitted that after obtaining the decree of recovery of money as against the respondent No.4 in O.S.No.88/1987 and the execution proceedings initiated by him has been concluded by executing the sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 21.03.1995. When such being the case, respondents No.1 and 2 ought not to have set aside the sale deed and restored the land in question to respondent No.4, since the petitioner has paid the valuable sale consideration for purchase of the said property, in auction sale. In case, if this Court comes to a conclusion that the orders passed by respondent authorities not interfered, the liberty may be granted to the petitioner to recover the loan amount from legal representative of deceased respondent No.4, in accordance with law.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent authorities has argued that the land in question was granted to respondent No.4 on 18.03.1980 after commencement of the PTCL Act, w.e.f., 01.01.1979. Such being the case, there is complete bar for 15 years for alienation of the granted property without prior permission of the government as required under Section 4(2) of the Act. The very sale was effect on 21.03.1995, while the execution petition was filed in the year 1998 itself. It is further submitted that the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 4, shall apply also to the sale of any land in execution of a decree or order of a Civil Court. Therefore, learned High Court Government Pleader supported the order of respondents No.1 and 2 and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. Upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent authorities, it is not in dispute that the land in question had granted to deceased respondent No.4 on 18.03.1980 after commencement of the PTCL Act. As per section 4(1) of the Act, there is prohibition of transfer of granted lands either before of after the commencement of the Act, in contravention of the terms of the grant of such land or the law providing for such grant, or sub-section (2) shall be null and void. Sub- Section (2) of 4 clearly prohibits that no person shall, after the commencement of this Act, transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land without the previous permission of the Government.
8. Here, in this case, admittedly, the petitioner said to be filed a suit against respondent No.4 for recovery of loan amount of Rs.6,500/- which said to have been lent by him to respondent and for non-payment of loan amount, the petitioner has obtained a decree from the civil Court in O.S.No.88/1987 and thereafter he filed a execution petition in Ex.P.No.9/1988 for executing the said decree. During the execution proceedings, civil Court put the said granted land in public auction sale and the petitioner himself said to have purchased the said property for valuable sale consideration of Rs.15,000/-. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the auction sale also confirmed by the civil Court. In this regard, the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 4 can be taken into consideration.
9. Sub-section (3) of 4 of the Act, reads thus:
“(3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply also to the sale of any land in execution of decree or order of a Civil Court or of any award or order of any other authority”.
In view of the very provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 4, there is a bar for sale or transfer or alienation of granted land and prior sanction is required.
10. Here, in the case, though the sale deed is executed by the civil Court under the executing proceedings, sub-section (3) of section 4 clearly says that the sale or transfer of any land in execution of a decree or order of a Civil Court shall applicable to the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2). Such being the case, the very sale deed executed by the civil Court, effected through public auction on 21.03.1995, under the execution proceedings, definitely hit by section 4 of the Act. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that respondents No.1 and 2, after considering the fact of the sale deed executed by the civil court as well as provisions of the Act, have rightly resumed and restored the land in favour of deceased respondent No.4. Therefore, there is no ground made out by the petitioner to interfere with the impugned orders passed by respondents No.1 and 2, at Annexures-B and A, respectively. Therefore, the petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to recover the loan amount from the legal representative of deceased respondent No.4, in accordance with law.
SD/- JUDGE DL