ORDER
Petitioner purchased 75 cents, out of 1 acre of land in Sy. No. 248/5 of Mannur Village, Kamlikottala Hobli, Shiraguppa Taluk, Bellary District from the 5th respondent under a sale deed dated 23.09.1989 Since then, he is in possession and enjoyment of the property, which can be seen from the entries in the revenue records. Undisputedly, the land which was sold in favour of the petitioner, as above, was a tenanted land, the occupancy rights of which was conferred on respondent No. 4, by the Land Tribunal on 27.10.1986 The 4 respondent having approached the 1st respondent, by invoking the provisions of the Karnataka Act 2 of 1979, a resumption order as at Annexure - C having been passed and an appeal filed by the petitioner, before respondent No. 2, having been dismissed, vide order at Annexure - D, this writ petition was filed, to quash the orders, as at Annexures - C and D, passed by respondents 1 and 2.
2. Sri. S.S Patil learned advocate, contended that the occupancy rights of the property in question having been conferred on the 4 respondent, under the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 and the property being not a ‘granted land’, in respect of which the provision of Karnataka Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prohibition of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 is attracted, respondents 1 and 2 have committed illegality in mechanically passing the orders, as at. Annexures - C and D. He submitted that the 1 respondent did not conduct the proceedings of the case as per Rule 3 of the Karnataka Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prohibition of Certain Lands) Rules 1979 and there being violation of principles of natural justice, even the 2 nd respondent, by acting mechanically, has dismissed the appeal vide order as at Annexure - D. He submitted that the decision in the case of Mohammed Jaffar v. State of Karnataka, reported in ILR 2002 KAR 4693 being applicable, impugned orders are liable to be quashed.
3. Shri. S.S Magadum, learned advocate, appearing for respondent No. 4, did not dispute the fact that the land sold in favour of the petitioner, which is the subject matter of the orders, as at Annexures - C and D, was granted under the provisions of Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977. Learned counsel submitted that, respondent No. 4 being a person belonging to a depressed community, approached respondent No. 1 for relief and the case having been enquired into, the order at Annexure - C was passed. He submitted that there being no infirmity in the order passed vide Annexure - C, 2 respondent is justified in dismissing the appeal, vide order as at Annexure - D. Shri. A.G Maldar, learned HCGP, made submissions in support of the orders as at Annexures - C and D.
4. Perused the writ record. There is no dispute that the occupancy rights in respect of the land in question was conferred upon respondent No. 4, under the provisions of Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977. From the record of the case, it is clear that the property in question is not a ‘granted land’, so as to attract the provisions of Karnataka Act 2 of 1979.
5. In the case of Mohammed Jaffar, the question referred to the Full Bench, reads as follows:
“2…………. Whether the land in respect of which occupancy rights have been conferred in favour of a tenant under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1974, can be construed as “granted land” as defined under Section 3(h) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain lands) Act, wherever the tenant belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and thus is amenable to the jurisdiction and operation of the PTCL Act or only restricted meaning to be given in this regard?”
The said question was answered as follows:
“7. ………… On overall consideration and, as discussed above, we are of the view that the land in respect of which the occupancy right has conferred under Section 48-A of the KLR Act would not fall within the ambit of ‘granted land’ as defined under Section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act and answer the referred question in negative.”
6. In view of the undisputed factual position that the respondent No. 4 acquired occupancy rights in respect of the land in question and sold the same in favour of the petitioner, the land being not a “granted land”, as defined under Section 3(1)(b) of Karnataka Act 2 of 1979, the decision rendered in the case of Mohmmed Zafar (supra), squarely applies. Consequently, respondent No. 1 is unjustified in allowing claim of respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 2 has also committed illegality in dismissing the meritorious appeal filed by the petitioner. The impugned orders being contrary to the ratio of the law in the decision, noticed supra, following the said decision, this petition is liable to be allowed.
In the result, writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders, as at Annexures - C and D, passed by respondents 1 and 2 are quashed. There being no dispute that the land in question is not a ‘granted land’, falling within the definition of 3(1)(b) of PTCL Act, the proceedings initiated by respondent No. 4 before respondent No. 1 being not maintainable, is terminated accordingly.
In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Comments