Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Krishnamurthy v. The Deputy Commissioner, Chikmagalur And Others

Karnataka High Court

Jun 14, 2002

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Important Paras

Please sign up to view Important Paras.

Smart Summary (Beta)

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The petition arises from a challenge to two administrative orders rejecting the petitioner’s attempts to void a sale and obtain resumption/restoration of granted land under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act (the PTCL Act).

The petitioner, belonging to the Dombaru caste (alleged Scheduled Caste), says his father received Survey No. 16.P (2 acres) by a grant under Darkasth rules dated 4.10.1962. Although an upset price was originally fixed, it was waived as the grantee was said to be a Scheduled Caste member, and the grant carried a non‑alienation condition for 15 years. The land was allegedly sold first to Balachandra in 1965 and then to Respondent‑4 in 1972.

After the PTCL Act came into force, the petitioner sought relief under Section 4 of the PTCL Act from the Assistant Commissioner, Tarikere Sub‑division, for declaring the sales void and for resumption/restoration. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the petitioner's application on two grounds: (1) the petitioner failed to prove Scheduled Caste status because a Head Master’s certificate indicated the petitioner belonged to "Gani Dombidasaru" (a non‑Scheduled Caste/community), and (2) the grant was under a rehabilitation scheme for displaced persons (not under a scheme for Depressed Classes), and therefore outside the PTCL Act’s purview.

The petitioner appealed to the Deputy Commissioner, Chikmagalur, after a delay of 6 years and 8 months, seeking condonation of delay. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the condonation application (invoking jurisdiction under Section 5A) and dismissed the appeal as barred by delay and laches. The petitioner challenged both orders by filing the present writ petition.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Deputy Commissioner could decide or dismiss the appeal on merits when the appellant’s counsel was absent on the date fixed for hearing, in light of the Full Bench decision in K. Muniswamappa's case.
Whether the Assistant Commissioner erred in rejecting the petitioner’s claim of Scheduled Caste status by relying on a Head Master’s certificate rather than the Tahsildar’s certificate.
Whether the PTCL Act applies where land was granted under a rehabilitation scheme for displaced persons (i.e., whether a land granted to a person who happens to be a Scheduled Caste member is "granted land" within Section 3(b) of the PTCL Act, when the grant was not made solely because of the person’s SC/ST status).

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

Reliance on the Full Bench decision in Sri K. Munishamappa v. The State of Karnataka & Others (ILR 1998 KAR 3849): the Deputy Commissioner could not decide the appeal on merits when the petitioner's counsel was absent; at most the appeal should have been dismissed for default and not decided on the merits of the case (or the condonation application should not have been rejected without following the Full Bench guidance).
The Assistant Commissioner wrongly relied upon a Head Master’s certificate indicating the petitioner belonged to "Gani Dombidasaru" (not a Scheduled Caste) instead of accepting the Tahsildar’s certificate showing the petitioner belongs to "Dombaru" (a Scheduled Caste).
The PTCL Act should apply irrespective of the scheme under which the land was granted: if the grantee belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and the grant contains a non‑alienation condition which was violated, the PTCL Act provisions should be attracted.

Authorities / Respondents’ Position (as reflected in the orders)

The Assistant Commissioner held that the petitioner failed to prove Scheduled Caste status because of the Head Master’s certificate indicating "Gani Dombidasaru", and further held the grant was made under a rehabilitation scheme for displaced persons (not a grant given because the grantee was from a Depressed Class), so the PTCL Act did not apply.
The Deputy Commissioner, on receiving the delayed appeal, found the long delay (6 years and 8 months) unexplained and rejected the condonation application under his Section 5A jurisdiction, resulting in dismissal of the appeal on the ground of delay and laches.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Sri K. Munishamappa v. The State Of Karnataka & Others, ILR 1998 KAR 3849 (Full Bench)	Authorities (including appellate authorities) should not decide appeals on merits when the appellant or his counsel does not appear on the date fixed for hearing; the proper course is to dismiss for default (not decide the merits).	The Court acknowledged this principle as settled law but distinguished the Deputy Commissioner’s order: the Deputy Commissioner had not decided the appeal on merits but had rejected an interlocutory condonation of delay application under Section 5A; hence the Full Bench rule did not invalidate the Deputy Commissioner’s action in that respect.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded in two analytic strands: (A) whether the Deputy Commissioner’s rejection of the appeal was impermissible under K. Munishamappa; and (B) whether the PTCL Act applied to the present facts.

(A) On the Deputy Commissioner’s dismissal of the appeal

The court accepted the legal proposition from the Full Bench in K. Munishamappa that when an appellant or their counsel does not appear, authorities should not decide the case on merits but should dismiss for default. The court described this as an established rule.
However, on examining the Deputy Commissioner’s order, the court found the Deputy Commissioner had not decided the appeal on the merits: he had considered and rejected the interlocutory application for condonation of delay under his Section 5A jurisdiction because the petitioner’s explanation for the 6 years and 8 months delay was unsatisfactory.
Rejecting the condonation application results in dismissal of the appeal as barred by time, but that outcome flowed from the interlocutory decision on delay rather than a merits adjudication. Thus the Deputy Commissioner’s action did not conflict with the Full Bench principle.
The court noted that even though the Deputy Commissioner did not examine the substantive applicability of the PTCL Act, the High Court could itself decide that question; if the PTCL Act applied, remand might be necessary, but if not, remand would serve no purpose.

(B) On applicability of the PTCL Act to the granted land

The court focused on the definition of "granted land" in Section 3(b) of the PTCL Act, observing that a necessary precondition to bring land within the definition is that the land must have been granted to a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
The court emphasized that not all lands granted under various statutory schemes or rules (e.g., Land Revenue Act, Land Reforms Act, Land Grant Rules) fall within Section 3(b); the crucial factor is that the grant must have been made because the recipient belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
Even though many statutes provide for grants to encourage cultivation or to persons below the poverty line — and an applicant of any caste, including SC/ST, might qualify or obtain occupancy rights — such grants are not automatically within PTCL protection unless the grant was made solely on the ground of the person’s SC/ST status.
Applying that legal test to the facts of the present case, the court found the petitioner’s land was granted under a rehabilitation scheme for displaced persons (due to submergence caused by the Sharavathi Project) through a Special Officer for Rehabilitation and Irrigation Development. The grant was made because the grantees were displaced persons, not because of their caste or community.
The court noted that among about 21 grantees, only the petitioner belonged to a Scheduled Caste; most others did not, and some belonged to higher communities. Thus the grant was not conferred solely because the petitioner belonged to a Scheduled Caste.
Consequently, the PTCL Act was not attracted; simply being incidentally a member of a Scheduled Caste does not bring the land within Section 3(b) if the grant’s object was not to benefit a Depressed Class or community.
The court concluded that the Assistant Commissioner had properly analyzed these points and reached a correct conclusion that the PTCL Act did not apply in the petitioner’s circumstances.

The court therefore saw no useful purpose in remitting the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration under the PTCL Act because the High Court itself was satisfied the PTCL Act did not apply.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Writ Petition is REJECTED. The court upheld the Assistant Commissioner’s conclusion that the PTCL Act did not apply to the subject land and found no need to remand the matter despite the Deputy Commissioner’s dismissal of the appeal on grounds of delay.

Implications:

Direct effect on the parties: The petitioner’s challenge to annul the sales and seek resumption/restoration under the PTCL Act fails; the Assistant Commissioner’s order stands, and the late appeal dismissal by the Deputy Commissioner remains without remedial effect because the substantive PTCL claim was found inapplicable.
The court made clear that no broader reading of the PTCL Act is permissible: to bring a granted land within Section 3(b), it must be shown the grant was made because the grantee belonged to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Grants made for other reasons (such as rehabilitation of displaced persons), although the grantee may incidentally be from an SC/ST, do not fall within the PTCL Act.
The decision does not purport to create a new expansive precedent beyond applying the statutory definition; the ruling confines PTCL applicability to grants made on account of SC/ST status and does not extend the Act to all grants where the grantee incidentally belongs to SC/ST.
The court left open administrative or legal remedies under other statutes: if the sale is prohibited under provisions of the Land Revenue Act or the Land Grant Rules or is contrary to grant conditions, authorities may take appropriate steps under those Acts or Rules.
Costs: The court ordered that there shall be no order as to costs in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Note: This summary is confined strictly to information present in the provided opinion. No facts, precedents, or consequences have been added beyond what the opinion itself states.

Show all summary ...

2. W.P No. 36310/1998 dd. 6.6.2002 - Shri Abdul Haq Shamshuddin Saheb v. Deputy Comnr., Uttara Kannada, Karwar (do)

Sri Laxminarayan, Advocate for Petitioner

Sri M.G Anjana Murthy

, High Court Government Pleader, for Respondents 1 to 3

Bannurmath, J.:—

Challenging the order dated 26.6.1992 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Tarikere Sub-division, Tarikere, Chikmagalur District, in No. SC/ST 12:90-91 (Annexure B to the Writ Petition) rejecting the application of the petitioner to declare the sale of the land as void and the consequential relief of resumption and restoration under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act (for short the PTCL Act) as well as the order dated 8.6.1999 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chikmagalur, in appeal No. PTL 27/98-99 rejecting the appeal only on the ground of delay and latches (Annexure D to the Writ Petition) the petitioner has approached this Court in the present Writ Petition.

The brief facts, according to the petitioner, are as follows:

The petitioner is a resident of Sutha village, Hosanagara Taluk, Shimoga District. He belongs to “Dombaru” caste which is recognised as Scheduled Caste under the Constitution of India, 1950, as per the relevant Scheduled Caste Order. It is the case of the petitioner that the land Survey No. 16.P of Gopala village, Lakkavalli Hobli, Tarikere Taluk, measuring 2 acres was granted to Veerappa, father of the petitioner, under the Darkasth rules on and by the order dated 4.10.1962 Though originally an upset price of Rs. 75/- per acre was fixed, on the application made by the grantee the upset price was waived off on the ground that he belongs to Scheduled Caste and as such the grant was free of costs. According to the petitioner, though there was a condition of non-alienation for a period of 15 years, the land came to be sold to one Balachandra in the year 1965 and later the said Balachandra sold it in favour of Respondent-4 in the year 1972.

After coming into force the PTCL Act, the petitioner moved the Assistant Commissioner to take action under Section 4 of the PTCL Act, i.e, for declaring the sales made in favour of Balachandra and Respondent-4 as void as the same are in violation of the Land Grant Rules and for consequential relief of resumption and restoration. By the impugned order the Assistant Commissioner rejected the prayer of the petitioner on two grounds, viz., (1) that the petitioner has failed to prove that he belongs to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, since his claim that he belongs to “Dombaru” caste is belied by the Certificate produced from the Head Master where the petitioner had studied indicates that he belongs to “Gani Dombidasaru” community which is not a Scheduled Caste and (2) that the grant was not under the scheme made for Depressed Class but was under the scheme of Rehabilitation of Displaced Persons and as such it does not come within the purview of PTCL Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner after a lapse of 6 years and 8 months with an application for condonation of delay. Though initially the petitioner was represented by a counsel, as he did not turn up after filing his vakalath on a number of occasions, the Deputy Commissioner considering the application for condonation of delay held that the long delay in filing the appeal, i.e, 6 years and 8 months, could not be condoned as no sufficient cause has been shown. Accordingly, he dismissed the application. Consequently, the appeal itself was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The petitioner has challenged these two orders in this petition.

The main ground of attack of the petitioner against the order of the Deputy Commissioner is that in the light of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sri K. Munishamappa v. The State Of Karnataka & Others* . ILR 1998 KAR 3849. the Deputy Commissioner could not have decided the case or even the application on merits when the petitioner's counsel was absent. It is contended that at the most the Deputy Commissioner could have dismissed the appeal for default and could not have rejected the condonation of delay application. Adverting to the order of the Assistant Commissioner, it is contended that the Assistant Commissioner has relied upon the Certificate said to have been issued by the Head Master showing the caste of the petitioner as “Gani Dombidasaru” (which is admittedly not a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe) instead of relying upon the Certificate issued by the Tahsildar showing that the petitioner belongs to “Dombaru” Community which is a Scheduled Caste. As such, the impugned order of the Assistant Commissioner is illegal and based on extraneous consideration. So far as the applicability of the PTCL Act is concerned, it is contended that whatever may be the nature of grant under any scheme, if the grantee belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and, if there is a non-alienation condition in the said grant and if the same is violated, the provisions of the PTCL Act are straightaway attached to such case.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and since the case is to be decided on the question of law as to the applicability of the PTCL Act, the same is disposed of finally with the consent of the counsel.

So far as the dismissal of the appeal by the Deputy Commissioner is concerned, no doubt, the Full Bench of this Court in the case of K. Muniswamappa's case (cited supra) has held that if the petitioner or the appellant in an appeal does not appear on the date fixed for hearing, it is not open to the authorities including the Appellate Authority to decide the case on merit, but it should dismiss the case or the appeal as the case may be for default. There cannot be any dispute about this proposition of law settled by the Full Bench. However, on a perusal of the order of the Deputy Commissioner it is seen that he has not decided the appeal on merits. What he has decided is the interlocutory application which goes to the root of the matter, viz., maintainability of the appeal beyond the period of limitation prescribed. As the explanation of the petitioner was unsatisfactory and since the appeal was filed after 6 years and 8 months, using the jurisdiction under Section 5A the Deputy Commissioner has rejected the application itself. No doubt, the consequence is the dismissal of the appeal as barred by time. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that, as the Deputy Commissioner has not followed the law laid down by this Court in K. Munishamappa's case (cited supra) for remand of the case for fresh consideration as at the time of preliminary hearing itself this Court doubted the applicability of the PTCL Act to the case of the present nature, this Court has proceeded to hear the counsel on that aspect. If the Court is satisfied that the provisions of the PTCL Act are applicable, then only the question of setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner or remand of the case would arise. If the PTCL Act is not applicable, no purpose would be served by remanding the case for decision of the Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of the PTCL Act.

On a perusal of the aims and objects of the PTCL Act and especially the definition of “granted land” as per Section 3(b), it is seen that to bring any granted land within the definition the condition precedent is that such land should have been granted to a person belonging to either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. It is to be remembered here itself that under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act and various other provisions like the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, Land Grant Rules, etc. time and again provisions are made to encourage cultivation and for grant of lands to the persons who do not own land or who belong to either Depress Class or who are below the poverty line. In a loose sense, all such granted lands cannot be the land coming within the purview of Section 3(b) as stated and as is defined, the land must have been granted only to a person, who belongs to either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. If the grant is for any other reason and even if incidentally such grantee belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, in my view, the PTCL Act is not attracted. In a recent pronouncement of this Court in the case of Shri Abdul Haq Shamshuddin Saheb v. Deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada, Karwar . W.P No. 36310/1998 dd. 6.6.2002 considering similar question as to the grant under the Land Revenue Act of the Land Grant Rules to a person belonging to and only on that count vis-a-vis the grant or conferment of right under the Land Reforms Act, this Court has held that to invoke the provisions of the PTCL Act it must be shown that the land was granted to a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe only on that count and not otherwise. This is more so, since like the provisions of the Land Reforms Act any person belonging to either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or even higher class can claim grant of occupancy right and, if he shows compliance with the necessary conditions, he is entitled for such conferment of occupancy rights or grant of the land. At that stage, it is not necessary that he should belong to a particular caste or community. As such, reiterating the same principle in my view to bring a land within the definition of “granted land” as per Section 3(b) of the PTCL Act as well as the applicability and invoking the provisions of the PTCL Act, it is mandatory and necessary to show that the land in question was granted to the petitioner or the claimant/grantee only on the ground that he belongs to Depress Class or Community.

Coming to the fact of the present case, as seen from the records, the lands in Sutha Village were submerged under the Sharavathi Project and the persons like the petitioner were displaced from the village itself. As such, as the petitioner and other villagers of Sutha village who had lost the source of livelihood, under the scheme of rehabilitation of displaced persons the Government had allotted or granted through the Special Officer for Rehabilitation and irrigation Development in T.B.S Project, Shimoga, certain lands to the petitioner and 20 other persons of Sutha Village only on account of they being displaced persons. It is not in dispute that except the petitioners, all the other 20 persons did not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and some of them belong to even higher community. As such, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the grant of the land to the petitioner was only on account of he being and belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of grant in the present case was only because the persons like the petitioner's father and 20 others were the persons whose lands were submerged because of submergence of Sharavathi project. Thus, in my view, merely because the petitioner incidentally happens to belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, it cannot be said that the grant was only on that count. Like any other 20 persons who belong to other castes and communities not coming within the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe have been granted the land and incidentally the petitioner happens to belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Hence, in my view, the provisions of the PTCL Act would not have been invoked by the petitioner praying for annulment of the sale effected as well as resumption and restoration. The Assistant Commissioner, in my view, has rightly analysed this position and held against the petitioner. No doubt, in the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner has not gone into this aspect, but has rejected the appeal only on the ground of delay and laches. On reconsideration of the question of law, since I am of the view that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is just and proper, no useful purpose will be served by remitting the matter to the Deputy Commissioner.

In the result, this Writ Petition fails and the same is rejected.

However, it is made clear that, if the sale of the land in question is prohibited under any of the provisions of the Land Revenue Act or Land Grant Rules or contrary to the conditions of grant, it is open to the authorities to take appropriate steps in this regard if permissible under any of the provisions of such Acts or the Rules.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.