IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT APPEAL NO.1358 OF 2016 (SC / ST) BETWEEN:
PUTTASWAMY SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 1. SMT.DEVAMMA @ KEMPADEVAMMA WIFE OF LATE PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BIDAGALU VILLAGE, SARAGUR HOBLI, H.D.KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 114 2. PUTTARAJU SON OF LATE PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BIDAGALU VILLAGE, SARAGUR HOBLI, H.D.KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 114.
3. NAGENDRA KUMAR SON OF LATE PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BIDAGALU VILLAGE, SARAGUR HOBLI, H.D.KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 114.
4. SURESH SON OF LATE PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BIDAGALU VILLAGE, SARAGUR HOBLI, H.D.KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 114.
5. SMT.CHANNAJAMMA DAUGHTER OF PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BIDAGALU VILLAGE, SARAGUR HOBLI, H.D.KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 114.
6. SMT. SUSHEELLAMMA @ DEVALAMMA DAUGHTER OF PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BIDAGALU VILLAGE, SARAGUR HOBLI, H.D.KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 114.
7. SMT. DAKSHAYANI DAUGHTER OF PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BIDAGALU VILLAGE, SARAGUR HOBLI, H.D.KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 114.
... APPELLANTTS (BY SRI VIGHNESHWAR S. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU – 571 114.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HUSUR SUB – DIVISON, H.D.KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 114.
SHIVANNA SON OF MUDDAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs 4. SMT. NAGAMMA WIFE OF LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDENT KATAVALU VILLAGE, B.MATAGERE POST, KANDALIKE HOBLI, H.D.KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 114.
5. VEERABHADRA SON OF LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KATAVALU VILLAGE, B.MATAGERE POST, KANDALIKE HOBLI, H.D.KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 114.
6. GURUSWAMY, SON OF LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KATAVALU VILLAGE, B.MATAGERE POST, KANDALIKE HOBLI, H.D.KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 114.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3.) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT’S ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.11675 OF 2011 DATED 26.04.2016.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 26.11.2019 COMING ON THIS DAY, M. NAGAPRASANNA J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 26.4.2016 in W.P. No.11675 of 2011, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, the petitioners have filed the instant writ appeal.
2. The parties will be referred to as per their ranking in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge.
3. The contention of the petitioners is that the land bearing Sy. No.11/1 measuring about 4 acres situated in Vallahalli village of H.D. Kote Taluk, Mysuru District, was granted in favour of Sannaiah bin Gendaiah. According to the petitioners, the grant was made on 3.2.1965 and subsequently, saguvali chit was issued in the name of Sannaiah. It is the case of the petitioners that Sannaiah sold the land in contravention of the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (‘hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in favour of late Shivanna, who died subsequently. The land was thereafter in possession and enjoyment of the wife and children, who were respondent Nos.4 to 6 in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge.
4. The sale made in favour of Shivanna was challenged under Section 5 of Act before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 1979. It was allowed by an order dated 16.3.1981 and an order of restoration of the land was made in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased Sannaiah. The same was challenged by filing an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal. Challenging both the orders, a writ petition was filed in W.P. No.15988 of 1985 which was allowed by the order dated 10.7.1989 remitting the matter for a fresh consideration to the Assistant Commissioner. On remand, the Assistant Commissioner dismissed the claim of the original grantee on 24.5.1990 on the ground that father of the applicant Puttaswamy and his uncle Nagaiah were the legal heirs of the land in question and the grand son alone cannot file the application. Liberty was reserved to Puttaswamy and his brother Nagaiah to file a fresh application.
5. Thereafter, a fresh application was filed before the Assistant Commissioner by Puttaswamy seeking a declaration that the sale made in favour of Shivanna was illegal and sought restoration of the land in question. The 3rd respondent-Assistant Commissioner allowed the claim by his order dated 30.4.1992 and declared that the sale in favour of Shivanna was null and void and ordered restoration. That was again challenged before this Court in W.P. No.10604 of 1994 which was allowed on 30.11.1995 and the matter was remitted back for a fresh consideration to the 3rd respondent-Assistant Commissioner for the second time. In the third remand proceedings, by an order dated 28.11.1996, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the respondents had perfected their title by adverse possession to the title of the petitioners which was again challenged by the petitioners before the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner. The 2nd respondent- Deputy Commissioner reversed the finding of the Assistant Commissioner and ordered restoration of the land to the original grantee/his legal heirs. This was again challenged in W.P. No.13736 of 1998 which was allowed by this Court and the matter was remitted back to the 3rd respondent- Assistant Commissioner for a fresh consideration. In those proceedings, the Assistant Commissioner again conducted an enquiry and dismissed the petition filed under Section 5 of the Act by an order dated 5.5.2007 and the appeal filed before the Deputy Commissioner also came to be dismissed by an order dated 21.12.2010. Challenging both the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, a writ petition in W.P. No.11675 of 2011 was filed. The learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition filed by the petitioners on the ground that the grant certificate based on which the entire proceedings had taken place would clearly indicate that the land was purchased on payment of auction price in a public auction and hence, it would not attract the provisions of the Act as it was not a granted land as contemplated under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioners have preferred this appeal.
6. We have heard Sri Vigneshwar S. Shastri, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri Shivaprabhu S. Hiremath, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
7. The proceedings that can be initiated for violation of the provisions of Act before the competent authority should be strictly in terms of the provisions of the Act and it should be a granted land as defined under Section 3(1)(B) of the Act. The grant certificate is produced as Annexure-A to the writ petition. We have thoroughly examined the same. Though the title of the certificate reads as the grant certificate, mere title of the document would not give any right to the beneficiary of that certificate. It is imperative to notice the recitals in the document. The recital in the document i.e. Annexure- A which is titled as a grant certificate clearly indicates that the land was purchased in a public auction for a price of Rs.100/-. Thus, a land that is purchased in public auction for consideration will not amount to a land granted under the aforementioned provision of the Act. The recitals in the certificate are unmistakably conclusive that it is not a granted land. The very proceedings initiated for restoration of land by the petitioners claiming a right over the land is unavailable to the petitioners. We are fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of B.K. MUNIRAJU VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in AIR 2008 SC 1438. Considering the very enactment, the Apex Court has unequivocally held that the recitals in the document are to be looked into as to what would be a granted land. In the instant case, it is evident that it was not a granted land but it was a land purchased for a consideration in a public auction. The learned Single Judge has considered this aspect of the matter in detail and concluded that the grant certificate would clearly indicate that it was not a free grant land and in terms of the law declared by the Apex Court, the very initiation of the proceeding under Section 5 of the Act was erroneous. Consequently, the proceedings initiated by the petitioners before the Assistant Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner entertaining the same, are, at the very outset, wholly without jurisdiction. We are in respectful agreement with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and do not find any error warranting interference.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Cs