IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.29353/2017 & W.P.Nos.29519-521/2017 (SCST) BETWEEN:
1. Kenchaiah, S/o. Marisiddaiah, Aged about 80 years, Residing at Ramanahalli Extension, Chikkamagalur Taluk and District-577101.
2. Smt. Kamala, D/o. Kenchaiah, Aged about 30 years, Residing at Ramanahalli Extension, Chikkamagalur Taluk and District-577101.
3. Satish, S/o. Kenchaiah, Aged about 28 years, Residing at Ramanahalli Extension, Chikkamagalur Taluk and District-577101.
4. Kumari Kavya, D/o. Kenchaiah, Aged about 25 years, Residing at Ramanahalli Extension, Chikkamagalur Taluk and District-577101.
... Petitioners (By Sri. Praneeth G.N., Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, M.S.Building, Bengaluru-560001.
2. Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamagaluru District, Chikkamagaluru-577101.
3. Assistant Commissioner, Revenue Sub Division, Chikkamagaluru, Chikkamagaluru District-577101.
4. Mansur Ali, S/o. Iqual Ali.G, Age: Major, R/at Near R.A Samad Shop, Mahamatha Gandi Road, Chikkamagaluru-577101.
... Respondents (By Smt. Savithramma, HCGP for R1 to R3; Sri. K.S.Ganesha, Advocate for R4) These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 30.03.2017 in No.PTL 27/2015-16 passed by R-2 as per Annexure-L confirming the order dated 14.09.2015 in No.PTCL.CR.29/2012-13 passed by R-3 as per Annexure-J and etc., These Writ Petitions coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioners are said to be the legal heirs of the original grantee Sri. Siddaiah and have challenged the order of the Assistant Commissioner, whereby their application for resumption and restoration came to be dismissed vide order dated 14.09.2015 passed in No. PTCL.CR. 29/2012-13 and have also challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioners by an order dated 30.03.2017 passed in No. PTL.27/2015-16, copy of which is enclosed at Annexure-L.
2. The relevant facts are that land came to be granted on 19.01.1951 and the daughter of the grantee who had obtained rights under a partition, had sought for permission to sell the granted land on 18.03.1987. Permission was granted on 18.06.1987 subject to certain conditions imposed including that certain land in Sy No.28/3 was to be purchased. The said Smt. Siddamma having obtained permission had sold the property on 16.11.1987 to one Sri. P.Vidyananda Bhat and subsequently, the property having changed hands has eventually been purchased by respondent No.4 on 21.01.1997. It is alleged that though permission was obtained which provided for purchase of alternative land in Sy. No. 28/3, that condition has not been complied with in letter and spirit. It is further alleged, though on 16-11-1987 land was purchased in Sy. No.28/3 from Sri Javaraiah even without transferring khatha into Siddama’s name, property has been re-conveyed to the said Javaraiah and hence fraud has been played and there is violations of provisions of the act.
3. Respondent No.4 submits that the said land that was purchased has been converted for non- agricultural purposes by an order dated 09.07.1997. On 26.11.2012, the husband and children of Smt. Siddamma have moved the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that there has been violation of law as well as conditions imposed as regards the grant. The Assistant Commissioner has dismissed the petition, so also the Deputy Commissioner has dismissed the appeal.
4. The Assistant Commissioner while taking note of the permission obtained from the Government on 18.06.1987 and also taking note of the order of conversion, agricultural to non-agricultural purpose on 09.07.1997 rejected the application.
5. The Deputy Commissioner has affirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner and holds that the action if any against the alleged violation of permission granted could be pursued in independent proceedings and such question cannot be raised in proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner under the Act. If there is any violation of the conditions imposed while permitting Smt. Siddamma to sell the said land, complaint could be made to the authority which has granted permission which would be the appropriate remedy. Clearly, the course of legal redressal sought for by the petitioners is impermissible.
Hence, the order of the Assistant Commissioner and the order of the Deputy Commissioner does not require interference.
Accordingly, petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE RB