Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 302 (KAR)

Muniraju v. State of Karnataka

2015-03-18

K.L.MANJUNATH, R.S.CHAUHAN

body2015
JUDGMENT K.L. Manjunath, J. 1. Though the matter is listed for preliminary hearing, by consent of parties, the matter is taken up for hearing. The concurrent findings of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 23239 of 2012 and other connected matters dated 6-9-2012 wherein, the learned Single Judge has confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore Sub-Division, dated 21-1-2008 in Case No. KSC. ST. 81:2006-07 which has been upheld by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, in Case No. SC. ST. (A) 101/2008-09, dated 2-12-2011. 2. The facts in these appeals are hereunder: The appellants are claiming to be the legal heirs of one Marappa. It is the specific case of the appellants that the aforesaid Marappa was granted 4.00 acres of land in Survey No. 54/2-P1 situate at Sathanur Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The aforesaid land was granted to Marappa under scheme known as "Grow More Food Scheme" (for short, the GMF Scheme). It was given on temporary lease to enable the farmers to cultivate more food as per the GMF Scheme. For first year, the lessee need not pay the assessment, but for the next year, he has to pay half of the assessment. The scheme also envisages the lessee to buy the land for an upset price. The Marappa, had taken the land on lease as scheduled caste person. 3. The land was granted under the GMF Scheme on 4-3-1943 under a provisional grant and thereafter, same has been sold to Marappa in the year 1960. 4. Under registered sale deed dated 16-1-1964, the land was sold to Dasappa, son of Venkataramanappa by Shambaiah who was the son of original grantee and the appellants are the legal heirs of Shambaiah. Dasappa, in turn has sold the property to one Kempaiah, the father of respondents 4 to 7. 5. Relying upon the provision of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, the TTCL Act), Shambaiah filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore Sub-Division for cancellation of sale deed executed by him in favour of Dasappa on the ground that sale made by him was contrary to the provisions of the PTCL Act. The case was contested by respondents 4 to 7 on the ground that the PTCL Act is not applicable for the fact of this case since the land was granted to father of Shambaiah under the GMF Scheme. Therefore, it cannot be the granted land to Scheduled Castes/Schedule Tribes in order to pass an order of resumption. 6. By order dated 27-6-2005, the Assistant Commissioner allowed the application holding that the land was granted to Marappa. Aggrieved by the same, respondents 4 to 7 filed an appeal before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore in Case No. SC. ST (A) 58/2005-06. The Special Deputy Commissioner after hearing the parties allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the land was granted under the GMF Scheme, initially a temporary lease was granted in 1941-1942 and the same was confirmed in 1955-1956 and the Special Deputy Commissioner came to a conclusion that when land was not granted to Marappa considering him as an Scheduled Caste person and that the PTCL Act is not applicable to the case. Accordingly, by order dated 11-10-2006, he set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants filed W.P. No. 23239 of 2012 and other connected matters, four years after the orders passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner. The learned Single Judge having heard the cases and following the judgment of this Court in Pedda Reddy vs. State of Karnataka and Others, 1993 (1) Kar. L.J. 328 (DB) : ILR 1993 Kar. 551 (DB), came to a conclusion that the land was granted considering him as an Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe and it was not granted to such a person on an upset price or free grant and the provision of the PTCL Act is not applicable. Accordingly, he dismissed the writ petitions on 6-9-2012. 7. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Special Deputy Commissioner and the learned Single Judge, the present intra-Court appeals are filed by the appellants. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Single Judge as well as the Special Deputy Commissioner have committed an error in holding that the land is not a granted land. 9. 7. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Special Deputy Commissioner and the learned Single Judge, the present intra-Court appeals are filed by the appellants. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Single Judge as well as the Special Deputy Commissioner have committed an error in holding that the land is not a granted land. 9. According to him, though the appellants have produced the R.T.C. extracts which disclose the nature of grant, the Special Deputy Commissioner and the learned Single Judge did not consider the documents relied upon the appellants. According to him, Marappa belongs to Scheduled Caste and any land granted to him, has to be considered as a granted land and any sale deed executed by Shambaiah, son of Marappa, is contrary to the conditions of the land to whom the land is granted under the provisions of the PTCL Act would apply. In the circumstances, he requested to allow the appeals. 10. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents supported the contentions of the learned Single Judge and the Special Deputy Commissioner and requested the Court to dismiss the appeals. 11. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration by this Court in these appeals is: Whether the learned Single Judge has committed an error in dismissing the petitions? 12. The scope in an intra-Court appeal is very limited. In this background we have examined the matter. Admittedly, land in question was granted to Marappa under the GMF Scheme. Lease of the land under the GMF Scheme is not restricted to any particular caste or community. Since there was shortage of food in India, scheme was brought to encourage the farmers to take the Government land on lease with a condition by giving an option that the land would be confirmed in favour of the same person. Accordingly, farmers who are interested to grow more food have taken the land on lease and thereafter lands have been confined to them. 13. When the land is taken under 'Grow More Food Scheme', the lessee is not required to pay rent or lease for the first year and he was required to pay half of the assessment of the land for the subsequent years. 13. When the land is taken under 'Grow More Food Scheme', the lessee is not required to pay rent or lease for the first year and he was required to pay half of the assessment of the land for the subsequent years. In the circumstances, we are of the view that if the land was granted to Marappa on lease under 'Grow More Food Scheme' and thereafter it is confirmed to him, it cannot be considered as a land granted to him considering him as Scheduled Caste or a depressed person. In addition to that, appellants have not placed any material to show that the land in question was granted to Marappa under 'Grow More Food Scheme'. Appellants have only relied upon the RTC extracts to substantiate their contention that it is a granted land. But based on RTC entries, no Court can hold that the land granted to Marappa as he belongs to depressed class or scheduled caste in order to attract the provisions of PTCL Act. 14. Writ petitions were filed by the appellants 4 years after the orders passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner. Writ petitions were dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and they have considered the petitions on merits and we do not see any merits in these appeals and the appellants request this Court to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appellants have approached the learned Single Judge 4 years after the orders are passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner. Viewed from any angle, we do not see any merits in these appeals. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.