Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

Sri Jagadish vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 July, 2013

Karnataka High Court


Sri Jagadish vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 July, 2013
Author: K.L.Manjunath And Malimath
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE


DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2013
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT APPEAL NOS.579-581/2012 C/W 449-451/2012
WRIT APPEAL NOS.579-581/2012
BETWEEN:
SRI JAGADISH
AGED 43 YEARS
NO.669, M.K.K.ROAD
2ND BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 010

... APPELLANT

(BY SRI S.P.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)


AND :
1.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA


DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
M.S.BUILDING
BANGALORE

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER


BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
BANGALORE

3.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER


BANGALORE NORTH
BANGALORE
2

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/62097705/

Sri Jagadish vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 July, 2013

4.

SRI G.N.RAMACHANDRA
S/O LATE NANJUSA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS

5.

SRI G.N.TUKARAM
S/O LATE NANJUSA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS

6.

SRI G.G.VASANTH
S/O LATE G.N.GNANDEV
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

7.

SRI G.G.RAVI
S/O LATE G.N.GNANDEV
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

8.

SRI G.G.RAM
S/O LATE G.N.GNANDEV
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

9.

SRI G.G.LAKSHMAN
S/O LATE G.N.GNANDEV
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF


C/O M/S AMAR TAPES INDUSTRIES
NO.28 & 28/1, 20TH CROSS
HOODI HANUMANTHAPPA LANE
KILLARI ROAD
BANGALORE-560 053
... RESPONDENTS
( BY SRI M.KESHAVA REDDY, AGA FOR
R1 TO R3; SRI H.P.MUDLAPPA, ADVOCATE
FOR R4 TO R9)
These Writ Appeals are filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order
passed in the Writ Petition No.19589-11591/2011
dated 16.08.2011.
3

WRIT APPEAL NOS.449-451/2012


BETWEEN:
1.

G.N.RAMACHANDRA
SON OF LATE NANJUSA

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/62097705/

Sri Jagadish vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 July, 2013

AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS


2.

G.N.TUKARAM
SON OF LATE NANJUSA
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS

3.

G.G.VASANTH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

4.

G.G.RAVI
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

5.

G.G.RAM
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

6.

G.G.LAKSHMAN
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

A3 TO A6 ARE SONS OF LATE G.N.GNANDEV


ALL RESIDING AT C/O M/S AMAR TAPES
INDUSTRIES, NO.28 AND 28/1, 20TH CROSS
HOODI HANUMANTHAPPA LANE
KILLARI ROAD
BANGALORE-560 053
... APPELLANTS
[BY SHRI H.P.MUDLAPPA AND
SHRI SANGAMESH R.B., ADVOCATES,
SHRI C.M.NAGABHUSHAN, ADVOCATE
FOR A3 AND A4(NOC) ]
AND :
1.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA


DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
4

M.S.BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001
2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER


BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
BANGALORE-560 009

3.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER


BANGALORE NORTH
BANGALORE-560 001

4.

JAGADISH
S/O YALLAPPA

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/62097705/

Sri Jagadish vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 July, 2013

NO.669, M.K.K.ROAD
2ND BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 010
... RESPONDENTS
( BY SRI S.P.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4;
SRI M.KESHAVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
These Writ Appeals are filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order
passed in the Writ Petition No.11589-11591/2011
dated 16.08.2011.
These Writ Appeals coming on for Hearing this
day, K.L.MANJUNATH. J., made the following: JUDGMENT

These appeals are filed challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed in
W.P.Nos.11589-11591/2011 dated 16th August 2011. The appellant in W.A.Nos.579-581/2012 was
respondent No.4. The appellants in writ appeal Nos.449-451/2012 were the writ petitioners.
Therefore, all these appeals are heard together.
2. The facts leading to these appeals are as hereunder:
One Nanjusa, the father of the writ petitioners had purchased about 4 acres and 13 guntas of land in
survey No.77 of Agrahara Dasarahalli village in Bangalore city under two sale deeds from one
Gundamma and Papaiah on 28.06.1962. Gundamma and Papaiah were enjoying the lands pursuant
to their hereditary rights in respect of personal and miscellaneous inams. On 04.08.1962, under
section 5 of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, the order of
regrant was granted to Gundamma and Papaiah. Thereafter, the father of the writ petitioners
Nanjusa converted the land from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes pursuant to the order
passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, on 27.05.1965. Subsequently, Nanjusa divided the
properties under the registered document on 8.5.1974. The petitioners having availed loan from the
bank commenced a factory therein after obtaining necessary plan and licence in the year 1985. In
respect of the very same land, certain civil suits were also filed by the writ petitioners and so also by
one of the legal heirs of Gundamma by name Ramakka, the daughter of Gundamma. Aggrieved by
the dismissal of her suit, she filed an appeal in R.F.A.No.283/2001 which appeal also came to be
dismissed by this court on 19.3.2004. Later Ramakka also challenged the order of conversion
granted by the Deputy Commissioner in favour of the father of the writ petitioners by filing an
application in 2009 which application came to be rejected on 2.6.2010.
3. 4th respondent who is not the descendant of Gundamma or Siddamma addressed a letter to the
Director of Civil Enforcement Cell, questioning the legality and correctness of the sale deed executed
by Gundamma and Papaiah on 28.06.1962 which was treated as an application under section 4 of
the PTCL Act by the Assistant Commissioner who ordered for resumption on 09.09.2010.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/62097705/

Sri Jagadish vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 July, 2013

4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the writ petitioners filed an appeal
before the Deputy Commissioner under section 5A of the PTCL Act, which appeal came to be
dismissed on 18.03.2011 in appeal No.89/2010.
5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 09.09.2010 and the order passed by
the Deputy Commissioner dated on 17.03.2011, the writ petitions came to be filed.
6. It was contended by the writ petitioners that fourth respondent Jagadish has no locus standi to
invoke the provisions of P.T.C.L. Act. and that there was no application filed by him as required
under the provisions of the PTCL Act and that considering the nature of rights of Gundamma and
Papaiah, the provision of PTCL Act had no application. Accordingly, they requested the Court to
allow the writ petitions and to set-aside the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner as well as
the Deputy Commissioner.
7. The writ petitioners relied upon the judgment rendered by the very same learned Single Judge in
the case of M.Munikenchappa vs. The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Dist. and others
(2004(2) KCCR 1025).
8. It was contended that fourth respondent was the legal heir of Siddamma and he has a right to
maintain a petition for resumption and that the judgment of the learned single Judge in
Munikenchappa's case was no more a good law.
9. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties, reconsidered his earlier order passed in
Munikenchappa's case and came to the conclusion that the land granted to Siddamma and
Gundamma under Section 5 of the Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954
would attract the definition of 'granted land' under section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act. Accordingly, he
dismissed the writ petitions. While dismissing the writ petitions, he has issued several directions to
various authorities in the manner in which the case of the parties are to be considered.
10. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petitions, the writ petitioners have filed a first set of
appeals. Aggrieved by the directions issued by the learned Single Judge, fourth respondent in the
writ petitions has also filed the appeals contending that when once the learned single Judge has
dismissed the writ petitions holding that the provisions of the PTCL Act is applicable, he had
exceeded in his jurisdiction in issuing directions to the several authorities as to how the case of
fourth respondent has to be considered.
11. We have heard Shri H.P.Mudlappa, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants/writ
petitioners and Shri S.P.Kulkarni, learned Counsel who appeared for fourth respondent in the writ
petitions. We have also heard the learned Government Advocate.
12. Shri Mudlappa, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants contends that the finding of the
learned single Judge that the judgment delivered by him in Munikenchappa's case is per incuriam is
incorrect because the judgment in Munikenchappa's case has been affirmed by a Division Bench of
this Court in W.P.No.3914/2009 in the matter of Jayamma v. The Assistant Commissioner,
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/62097705/

Sri Jagadish vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 July, 2013

Davanagere Sub Division, Davanagere and others and he also submits that the learned single Judge
has committed a serious error in not appreciating the definition of 'granted land' defined under
section 3 of the PTCL Act. According to him, there are different types of inams. Inam referred to
under the definition of 'granted land' which attracts the provisions of PTCL Act is pertained to the
land granted to Inamdar and that the provisions of the Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inam
Abolition Act, 1954, has no application for resumption under the PTCL Act, because the land would
be granted to a person who is having a pre-existed right and as such, grant of land under the
provisions of the Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954 would not attract the
provisions of the PTCL Act. He also relied upon a full Bench judgment of this Court in Mohammed
Jaffar and another v. State of Karnataka (ILR 2002 KAR 4693). In the circumstances, he requests
the Court to allow the appeals and dismiss the proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner,
so also the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the learned Single Judge.
13. Mr.S.P.Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for fourth respondent supporting the order of the
learned single Judge contends that the learned single Judge who decided Munikenchappa's case has
reconsidered the entire matter in detail in the present case and also considering the judgment in
Jaffar's case, has held that the judgment rendered by him in Munikenchappa's case as per incuriam.
He further submits that the division bench while considering the case of Jayamma did not consider
the order of the learned Single Judge in the present case where he has held that the judgment
rendered by him in Munikenchappa's case is per incurium. He further contends that Jaffar's case
only deals with the matter arising out of the Land Reforms Act and as such, the said judgment
cannot be extended to the land granted under the Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inam
Abolition Act, 1954. In regard to first appeal, he contends that when once the writ petition is
dismissed, the learned Single Judge is not justified in issuing direction to the various authorities.
According to him, the learned Single Judge was required to dismiss the writ petitions without any
further observations. In the circumstances, he requests the Court to allow his appeal by dismissing
the appeals of the writ petitioners.
14. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we have to consider the following points in
these appeals:
1) If a land is regranted by the Special Deputy Commissioner in favour of a person under section 5 of
the Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954, can be considered as a 'granted
land' as defined under section 3 of the PTCL Act?
2) Whether the judgment in Jayamma's case decided by a Division Bench of this Court holds the
field?
3) If these two points are held against the writ petitioners, whether the learned single Judge is
justified in issuing several directions to the different authorities after dismissing the writ petitions?
15. The facts in these appeals are not in dispute to the following extent:

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/62097705/

Sri Jagadish vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 July, 2013

The writ petitioners' father Nanjusa has purchased the lands in question under two registered sale
deeds from one Siddamma and Gundamma on 28.06.1962. It is also not in dispute that these lands
were regranted to Siddamma and Gundamma by the Special Deputy Commissioner of Inam
Abolition under section 5 of the Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954.
Therefore, the short question arises for our consideration is if the land is regranted to a person who
has pre-existing rights to enjoy the said land under the Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inam
Abolition Act, 1954, can invoke the provision of section 3 of the PTCL Act to seek resumption of the
land on the ground that within a prohibited period, the land had been alienated by a scheduled caste
person.
16. In order to appreciate the aforesaid question, it would be appropriate for us to consider the
definition of 'granted land' under the PTCL Act.
3. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.(a).............................................................
(b) "Granted Land" means any land granted by the Government to a person belonging to any of the
Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes and includes land allotted or granted to such person
under the relevant law for the time being in force relating to agrarian reforms or land ceilings or
abolition of inams, other than that relating to hereditary offices or rights and the word "granted"
shall be construed accordingly;
17. On a perusal of the definition of 'granted land', the legislature thought fit to exclude certain lands
granted to SC/ST persons from the purview of the definition of 'granted land'. By virtue of
hereditary offices or rights, if the land is granted to a S.C. or S.T. person, same has excluded from
the definition of granted land under P.T.C.L. Act.
18. It is not in dispute that in the instant case, Siddamma and Gundamma were enjoying the lands
in question by virtue of their hereditary offices and they had pre-existing rights to hold and enjoy
the land as tenants and if such tenancy right has been later converted into absolute right by virtue of
regrant order under section 5 of the Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954, it
cannot be considered as a granted land. In fact, the learned Single Judge on an earlier occasion
while considering the case of Munikenchappa, had rightly held that such land is excluded from the
purview of PTCL Act.
19. In a similar circumstance, while considering as to whether a land granted to a person by virtue of
his pre-existing right as a tenant under the land as per the provisions of the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act, can be the subject matter of resumption under the PTCL Act, the full bench of this
Court in Mohammed Jaffar and another v. State of Karnataka (ILR 2002 KAR 4693) has held that
such lands are excluded from the definition of 'granted land' under the PTCL Act. The division
bench of this Court in Jayamama's case referred to above has ruled as hereunder in the similar
circumstances.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/62097705/

Sri Jagadish vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 July, 2013

"3.............................................................. Our attention has also been drawn to the


decision in M.Munikenchappa vs. The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore
2004(3) Kar.L.J. 579 in which the learned Single Judge has gone into great detail. We
affirm the correctness of this decision."
20. It has not been disputed before us that the lands were regranted in favour of Gundamma and
Papaiah by virtue of they being cultivating the lands pursuant to their existed rights confirming the
occupancy right under section 5 of the Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954.
A Division Bench of this Court has already affirmed the judgment in Munikenchappa's case having
gone in detail, even if the very same single Judge has later held that his judgment in
Munikenchappa's case is per incuriam, this Court cannot follow the said judgment in view of the
Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jayamma's case. In the circumstances, we are of the view
that the order of the learned Single Judge has to be set-aside holding that resumption application
under PTCL Act cannot be invoked if a land is granted to the person holding hereditary office and
enjoying the land as a tenant and if such land has been regranted under the provisions of Mysore
(Personal & Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954. Therefore, we allow the appeals filed by the
writ petitioners by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge, and the order passed by the
Deputy Commissioner and also the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in ordering
resumption are hereby set-aside. Since we are allowing the appeal of the writ petitioners, the
question of considering the grievance of 4th respondent does not arise at all.
Accordingly, the writ appeal Nos.449 to 451/2012 are allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge
is hereby set-aside. The orders of resumption passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore,
which has been confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner are hereby set- aside. The writ appeal
Nos.579 to 581/2012 are dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE Sd/JUDGE YN.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/62097705/