IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 3ANc;AI_OR,E_":
DATED THIS THE 25?" DAY OF OCTOBER 201-OE " 3
BEFORE ..
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOKIS. H_:IINCHIG.E'RI:"p
WRIT PETITION No.23687_ Of,20O§A'(S--C,'ST}j
AND WRIT PETITION NOS.24Zv93,"30O o:°.20O91=
BETWEEN:
SHRI M PRASAD
Age:30 YEARS
S/O SHRIMNAGARAJ _ I
R/ATN O.21/16, 3RD ELOQR' :
3RD MAIN, I<RISHNA,..T'OwIERS ~ .
GANDHINAGAR *' _ '- .
BANGALORE 560 009, 1'-
_ _ . . PETITIONER
(By Sri PRAKAS1.-_£ T HE3EAR,IIADv,OICA*'r.E)
AND: V' % V
1. THE S,TATET*OE KARNATAKA.
'REVENUE DEPARTMENT """ "
STH IELC)QR,.M..S"--BUILDING,
DR =AME.EDi<_AR "ROAD,
3ANG.AL.O'RE'1.,._
REE; BY ITS SECRETARY.
'THE DEPuT'.~: COMMISSIONER
i.1'«.B'ANGALORE" RURAL DISTRICT
' _V..ISVE~$WARAIAH TOWERS
- DR'AM_IIEDI<AR ROAD,
._.E,.BAH-'GALORE 1.
;__3.E ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
, R' ;DODDABAI_I.APuRA SUB DIVISION,
DR AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE 1.
SHRI MUNIRAJAPPA S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA
MAJOR
BETTAKOTE VILLAGE
CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK, -
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. '
SMT MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA
MAJOR =
BETTAKOTE VILLAGE
CHANNARAYARATNA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK, _
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
SHRI DODDA VENKATAPPA As/_O'T BYAT-ARRAVV..'-'-~
MAJOR ._ 1 _ .
BETTAKOTE
CHANNARAYAPAT.NA5LH_Q_BLIé"
DEVANAHALLI TAL'UK,"' . "
BANGALORE Ru.RAL:'O;sTR_1cT;'v--' ~ A
SH RI CHIKKA vEm<,AjfA:?PA«..$"/C)_ LATE BYATAPPA
MAJOR 2 * A "
BETTAKOTE u\/I'LLAGE_ A <
cHANNARAYARA'rNA HOBLI'
DEVANAHALLI TALUR, A
_ BANGALORE RuRAL=n1V$TR.xCT.
SLi91RI_.xCrII_|1{rfAP4I?nA:IVAH S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA
'-s;wcE"a.EA.rg BY' L. Rs.
(ajfi "LAGUMA;pRA
"'««AGE_;'3'ABOUT 50 YEARS
' SRRI LIMUNIYAPPA
* =-AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
SHR1 ASWATHA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
, _(d) SHRI NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 35$ YEARS
(8) SHRI NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
(a) to (62) ARE THE SONS OF LATE CHIKKAPRAIAH,,......','_;
(f) SMT MEENA
D/O LATE CHIKKAPPAIAH
AGE 28 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/A RAYASANDRA VILLAGE.
KASABA HOBLI, .
DEVANAHALL1 TALUK.
I.) * P.ESPO)NDENTS
(By Sri R.DEvDAS, AGA FOR R-1"'-To .3,'--sR{I'SAi:;A'S.,H'TvA FOR FOR R4-
7, SRI VIJAY KUMAR FOR R--8(a) to (f), £\D\fOCA_T'ES'}. _
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILE-O 'UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITU'I'1Hi'Of~i.,O.FKNDIA evRRA.v'I'N'G TO QUASH THE
ORDER DT. 16.4.2§3o4'_PASSIED 'EIjI<._T'HE"-THI'I-Io, RESPONDENT AS PER
ANNEX-A AND ALSO_T”1HE»’,ORLFER”D.T.._6′.’1.2(309 PASSED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT A.S—-PER’~ANN’i_7;X-.B AND ETC–.—….
THESE IAIRIT’I=ET’ITijONS.,,C’O.{é1″ING’ON FOR PRL HG. IN ‘B’ GRUP
THIS DAY, THE COURT IIIADETHE._FOI.LOwING:
l”deEQRbER
VTiT.e_’vl’petiti,Aonehhas raised the challenge to the order, dated
16.0-4″.”2O0._=;V.l(Avn’ne§<II'Ife'¥A) passed by the Assistant Commissioner
the Order_, 'dated 06.01.2009 (Annexure~B) passed by the
uC,o'mm'issioner.
facts of the case in brief are that 4 acres of land at
SyI,_4N’or;44/1 of Rayasandra Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli
was allotted to Sri Byatappa on 14.05.1952. Out of the
said land, Byatappa soldfiz acres to Sri Chikkappaiah on
BH.
15.06.1960 and 22.01.1962. The said Chikkappaiah gVg:fr.he””sa’iid< H
agricultural land converted for non~agricultural "p_urpose' Horn,
16.06.1997. He along with his family men1be.rs 'sold
to the petitioner through his agent and attorney
Sri Subba Rao ~– one sale deed 'sale 0'
deeds, dated 30.06.2006.
3. At the other end of sought
the restoration of S€:9t’i:9h”‘5″iéof the Scheduled
Castes and Schedu.lVe’d_”ffrhieee of Transfer of Certain
Lands) Act, * .C_0rnn1issioner by his order,
dated 16.04.2004″int/aEi.d’at.ed :,th.e,t’sare deed executed in favour of
Chikkappaiah. a.ndkdi:rectedAflvitswrestoration to Byatappa. This
or’d,e.r”‘~0,fv”the*7Ass’istant VC0n1missioner was challenged by Sri
chakigapaaiajr.eg,twig an appeal LND.SC/ST(A).4/2004-05
:’v.Tb’ef0re the-..__Depu*ty’Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner by
‘ “his”<oVrder,, dated' 03.07.2006 allowed the appeal by setting aside
0 Commissioner's order, dated 16.04.2004.
.4." This order of the Deputy Commissioner was challenged
the L.Rs of Byatappa in W.P.No.12536/2006. As the effect of
official memorandum, dated 14.05.1952 was not considered in
IQBH.
~.L”40V.’7€o_rhiniAssio’ner’s order, dated 16.04.2004. The present petitioner
V’If-..has=instituted this petition raising the challenge to the two said
2)
its proper perspective, this Court set aside the Deputy
Commissioner’s order and remanded the matter fo’r._ifre3h
consideration. In the remanded appeal
Chikkappaiah filed a memo seeking the d»isvmissa_l-“of.-it w
The memo reads as follows: A 0 0
“The appellant in the above app’eal”‘subn’;:i’ts’that
the land bearing Sy.lVo.4-4/1, nieastrring 2..aCres’ iee
granted land, granted to oneV,Snl..”LBva~tappa,”‘SI/o
Doddappajappa, under tiiezV:.’dep’res.:sed”cia.ss’~roles. The
appellant purchased the said fon_.~..25.\Q-1.__1..962 and
15.06.1968, un_d.ejr;’ -two tiirreient ‘Sa.r.e ‘-Deeds. After
verification otthe to lgenoivithat the land in
question is grari,teVdti2e respondents herein
belongs ~’m’bep and the appellant
has violated theto.’:dition’s;l._:’Hence I have no intentions to
continue the” proceedir;gis’–~._eihd”therefore pray that this
Hon ‘ble Cotirttdrnay ~__be., pleased to dismiss the above
V appeaillasoinot pressed and confirmed the order passed by
_0’theeV”Asst?’Co’mn1ission’eré passed in Case lVo.P.T.C.L.SR
_Ne.’2o/.19-s;fi9~oo,V:’ dated 25–o4-2004, in the interest or
j’ustic.e’ and
The..i5e_pul:y Commissioner for the reasons stated in the
‘i._’rnVeriiondismissed the appeal by upholding the Assistant
HRH.
6
orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy
Commissioner.
5. Sri Prakash Hebbar, the learned counsel
petitioner submits that the Assistant CoAm’misési’one«r’s’o_rder7
confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner
formed the lay–out and sold the’-vioa”ri.d to the~_thirldwpartlies, if
Chikkappaiah had no surviving.inte.re’st.lVo_i’nthe lanolin ‘question.
There was no need for him further submits
that the said Chikkaifiiaiah to make one
more unlawful l’e;ag.ue with the L.Rs of
BYataPDa. HVe”s’ubi;lfi’:lt.s ;t’li§E’t ails;-eo’e*it’eicider, dated 13.08.2007
passed in has to be given effect to
by considering merits. He submits that the land
w:asi.giVndeed«:. g_rante’d-.to.«the said Byatappa. On the other
hand, ‘ft.il’l” -con.si’die’ra:tio_n was taken from him and the land was
:*”a,_sold to”hir’n. VIf*.toié,e.’e1’sa|e consideration is collected for giving a
_’lrlanol,..Vit arnountsto sale and not a grant under the Land Grant
.:Rule’s;~.ie trite submission of Sri Hebba r.
7tgHe further submits that the grant certificate is in Form
. issuable only to the sale deed holders. He has relied on the
I
order is not sustainabie, the Assistant
Vt”Colmmissioénerisalorder does not Catt for any interference, as the
iAs~e.pasve’d on the objective scrutiny of a number of
He submits that as the sake in favour of
it’_g._VCh’i-«ltkhalppaiah is invatid, the subsequent sales effected by
7
Hon’bEe Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of
B.K.Ml}NIRAJU V. STATE OF KARNATAKA 8:
reported in (2008) 4 SCC 451. The relevant paragra’ph§oi’..:th-a: _
said judgment is extracted hereinbelow:
“19. The above principles make f
have to see terms and conditions anrj :recitals.’in”the it 3
document and not the title alone.._V:”FhVough ” the idocu_n’ie;n’t;
according to the appellant, “certl’fica.te of gra’nt’._’y: lp’erusal
of the clauses therein, clearly eaowslmrlhe lane was
sold on 4-3-1948 in allélplublic _Motappa
purchased the same for a air?” addition
to the recitals, ;t’h§3’«y:.flrJari<:i3as;t' register extract" produced
as Annexure 1:-'(1"it-eforef-the«.lfllrTc;.iii.. _Co-urt_'als_o shows that the
land in questi'on:~-iiétas sold Form 1 also
indicatezéyllthati' !Tii'o_'uestio'n"V'vvas purchased and
what waspaid by: ~purc4ha..s:Ver__'under the said document
was the purthalse priced' . V.' J
'Vv_F<.l1)vevdas,.___the learned Additional Government
Ad'v'oVcat;e'–»for respo_ndent Nos.1 to 3 submits that even if the
I-13%
Chikkappaiah or through his agent and power of attornefyH:hoi.j'c'£.e'ri.V
Sri Subba Rao can also have no vaiidity at aii.
9. Sri Sadashiva, the learned counsel,-‘for? the irespon’d.eritV.ii
Nos.4 to 7 submits that just because -the saguvaigi chit
No.1, it cannot be presumed that got based on
the sale consideration. He oi the grant
has to be ascertained from o.f’vth»’el_d’ocuments and
not mereiy on its,,i?i,75é§?ii:ri’_9 C._3’§$ti?”.’I’I§.:V,’:’\.He*”‘submits that the
Assistant documents, has
deiivered 3 .
a) The iaind inouestioratii:_s’—a’:gV’g.*anted iand,
b) Byatappaaubeioinged to seheduled Tribe.
upret/aittiting Ruies imposed perpetual non-
‘Va_i-iena.tron’ ci’au.se.
3.0. S4}i,S’a,dashiva submits that the petitioner’s grievance,
.1ifA..Va’ri\’_’z,i..has-to be oniy against Chikkappaiah and/or his power of
the-4’attornei/’Ehoider, Sri Subba Rao. The petitioner is notjustified in
j_-.pro”ce,e”di’ng against the respondent Nos.4 to 7. He wouid further
that the petitioner has sought the quashing of the
Assistant Commissioner’s and the Deputy Commissioner’s orders
figfi.
in their entirety, although the petitioner’s interest
respect of a small fraction of 2 acres of land — 3 sites’;
11. Sn’ Vijaya Kumar, the learned counseél2a’ppea4ri’n:g____Vtoreit
the L.Rs of the 8″‘ respondent Ch»i’kl<_appa'ia_h"subrifitsyiltyhglat
said Chikkappaiah purchased the large in aqueustiontvfgwithout
knowing that it is a land belonging to
Scheduled Tribe. He submitst.h_a"tothertiiz."s"»of&'»':Cgh'i'Vkkappaiah are
not aware of the mstitioner, if any, to
the power of attorn.eyfi__lil}lde'r,'
12. What facts and the submissions
made at the barisyiithat C4hi.i_V<i<a.:_i§'paiah purchased the land from
Byat.a_ppa,_~ Chill<kap.Ho__ayiah subsequently acknowledges as a
sch'egluiVed..frrsit_;'e~igrantee. The Deputy Commissioner without
:–"*,_noticing"gw'hether'."gj–itVf=was a free-hold land or a granted land
lpgerrnitted uth.e'"KNA" conversion. Based on the NA conversion
Chilzlgaplpaiah formed the lay-out and sold the sites to
.A'-4"_d.if_ferent; persons including the petitioner. Admittedly, the sites
'.gjv..we'reVVso'ld through the agent and power of attorney holder of Sri
uichikkappaiah. Having sold the sites, Chikkappaiah does not
bother to safeguard the interests of the purchaser. On the other
GBH.
H
the appeai in the letter and spirit of the said order passe.d”‘-py H
Court. The petitioner is directed to make it
application for irnpleading himselfj”be’fore
Commissioner. However, it is for the Dep_u:t’y: A.€’3on1l’r’piss»ioneu¢:4’.’toil”
decide, on hearing the concerned and rnorevjpaurti:c’u’l’a’riy,
the respondent Nos.4 to 7 a5.__t0 relief to be
confined only to petitioner’s sites. The
Deputy Cornmissioneris remanded
appeal as expediti-o’u:siy Va”nd:.pin.V.any case, within an
outer limit of 5’tljeyldéateiioffithe production of the
certified copy ” l
15. These petivtionsrareraccordingly disposed of. No order
as:-to c’osts’.”- . ‘
Sale
7Iii’d§’§