Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 452 (KAR)

T. K. LAKSHMAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2004-07-16

D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

body2004
( 1 ) PETITIONER is a purchaser of certain extent of agricultural land in terms of the sale deed dated 6. 4. 1964 which had been granted in favour of the predecessor of the 4threspondent in terms of the grant order dt. 15. 5. 1957. ( 2 ) IN respect of the sale transaction in question, son of the original grantee claiming as legal representative of the grantee had initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (in short the Act) claiming that the land in question had been granted in favour of the persons belonged to Scheduled Caste and it had been sold in violation of the terms of the grant and as such provisions of the Act are attracted, that the sale transaction in question has to be declared as invalid and the land be resumed in favour of person claiming under the original grantee. ( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that the application filed by the 4threspondent came to be allowed by the Assistant commissioner and the appeal carried against the order of the Assistant Commissioner was also dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The matter had been carried before this court by filing writ petition W. P. No. 28147/1995, which came to be dismissed on 10. 1. 1997 (Annexure D ). It appears that the matter had been carried to the Division Bench of this Court by preferring writ appeal which was also dismissed,. It appears that dissatisfied with the orders of this court, the matter had been carried to the Supreme court by seeking Special Leave Petition which came to be rejected by the Supreme Court. Thus, the first round of litigation was completed and petitioners are now before this court on different cause of action. ( 4 ) IT appears that the authorities under the Act are now in the process of giving effect to the order by resuming the land and to handover possession in favour of the legal heirs of the original grantee. At this stage, the present writ petition is field by raising several questions of law. ( 4 ) IT appears that the authorities under the Act are now in the process of giving effect to the order by resuming the land and to handover possession in favour of the legal heirs of the original grantee. At this stage, the present writ petition is field by raising several questions of law. ( 5 ) SRI M. R. Rajagopal, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the entire proceedings in the first round of litigation was without authority of law or jurisdiction, that the authorities had proceeded on the premise that the original grantee was belonging to Scheduled Caste, which is factually not so, that the original grantee belonged to Lambani community which was declared as Scheduled Caste for the first time in terms of the Government Notification dt. 8. 8. 1983, and that the authorities had proceeded on an erroneous premise that the original grantee belonged to scheduled Caste. According to him, since the respondent authorities have come to an improper conclusion based on erroneous consideration of the facts, the petitioner is entitled to question such proceedings even at the execution stage. In support of his submission, learned counsel had placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of MATHURA PRASAD VS DOSSIBAI ( AIR 1971 SC 2355 ) as also the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ASHOK LEYLAND LTD vs. STATE OF T. N and ORS. ( (2004) 3 SCC 1 ). Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order without jurisdiction is nullity in the eye of law and it is open to challenge the order in question or legality of such an order as and when he is confronted with such an order or is sought to be enforced against a person like the petitioner, According to him, the present proceedings is one to resume his land is in the nature of execution proceedings, the petitioner is entitled to raise this question. The petitioner has sought for issue of writ of mandamus declaring the orders passed by the authorities are not enforceable and also writ of certiorari quashing the further proceedings pending before the respondent authorities. The petitioner has sought for issue of writ of mandamus declaring the orders passed by the authorities are not enforceable and also writ of certiorari quashing the further proceedings pending before the respondent authorities. ( 6 ) SUBMISSIONS of the learned counsel of petitioner proceeds on several fallacious assumptions, The first is that the respondent authorities lacked jurisdiction on the ground that the original grantee was not a person belonging to Scheduled Caste, which is a question of fact. Assuming that it had been wrongly decided holding that the person belonged to Scheduled Caste and based on which the authorities had proceeded, it cannot be said that the authorities lacked initial jurisdiction. It is these authorities who have to examine the question of violation of the terms of the grant by the original grantee selling away the land granted in favour of third parties violating the terms of the grant. There is no lack of initial jurisdiction on the part of the authorities. What is more important is whether the grantee is member of Scheduled Caste or not. This is again a question of fact which has bee answered against the petitioner and the land even resumed, The respondent authorities having proceeded on the premise that the grant was in favour of a person belonging to Scheduled Caste and that position having been affirmed in the first round of litigation between the parties which was fought up to the Supreme Court, it is not open to the petitioner to reopen such proceedings on the premise that the original proceedings were without jurisdiction. ( 7 ) THERE is a distinction between want of jurisdiction and lack of jurisdiction which is a question of law and which goes to root of the matter in the sense that the authorities does not have any say in the matter over which he seeks to exercise such a power and a situation where the authorities with initial jurisdiction seeks to exercise power on the assumption of a factual premise. Assuming that factual basis is incorrectly found for the purpose, the further action by the authority, which has initial jurisdiction, can be got over by resorting to remedies available under the respective enactments or even under constitutional remedies. Assuming that factual basis is incorrectly found for the purpose, the further action by the authority, which has initial jurisdiction, can be got over by resorting to remedies available under the respective enactments or even under constitutional remedies. When all such remedies are exhausted and the order is sustained, it is not open to any person to question such an order by resorting to second round of litigation only on the premise that the order is one without jurisdiction. ( 8 ) THE reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in both Mathura Prasads ( AIR 1971 SC 2355 ) and Ashok Leylands ( (2004) SCC 1) cases are not applicable to the situation which the petitioner is seeking to canvass in the present writ petition and to examine the matter 2ndtime for the purpose of a writ in the nature of declaration to hold that the orders questioned in the earlier round of litigation and which culminated in upholding of such orders, as an order without jurisdiction in the second round of litigation. ( 9 ) SRI Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, lastly submits that there are standing crops on the land in question and at least the petitioner should be given some time to harvest the crop as has been done in a number of cases before this court. What is significant is that it should be borne in mind that the petitioner having come to this court in the 2ndround of litigation questioning the legality or otherwise of the impugned order is not entitled to the relief as sought for a s the proceedings have been initiated in the year 1990 and having dragged on for considerable time, it is not proper for this court to entertain such a request. Accordingly, the request is rejected. The writ petition is dismissed. --- *** --- .