Anneppa vs The Tahsildar, Humnabad Taluk, Bidar District and Others

V. Gopala Gowda, J.-The petitioner has purchased two lands bearing Sy. Nos. 53 and 53/2 of Bainchincholi Village in Humnabad taluk under two registered sale deeds dated 17-11-1967 and 23-5-1973. He has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the proceedings initiated by the first respondent and the order passed; by him as per Annexure-E, dated 1-3-1984 declaring the sale deeds in favour of the petitioner as null and void under the provisions of Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976 and directing handing over possession of the lands to respondents 3 to 10.

In the first instance, proceedings were initiated under the provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (''PTCL Act'' for short) and the order dated 28-11-1981 passed by the Assistant Commissioner was challenged in Writ Petition No. 32377 of 1981 along with the constitutional validity of the PTCL Act. This Court by order at Annexure-B, dated 26-11-1983 dismissed the writ petition insofar as the challenge to the provisions of PTCL Act and quashed the order of the Assistant Commissioner and remanded the case to him for disposal in attendance with law. The Assistant Commissioner was directed to dispose of the matter in the light of the observations made therein. As per Annexure-D, dated 7/10-1-1984 the Assistant Commissioner issued endorsement rejecting the claim on the ground that the lands in question are not granted lands but they are patta lands. Thereafter, as mentioned in Annexure-E, dated 1-3-1984 it appears that the Assistant Commissioner has transferred the matter to the Taluk Magistrate and Tahsildar to consider the same under the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976. The Taluk Magistrate passed the order as per Annexure-E declaring the sale deeds in favour of the petitioner as null and void and directed to hand over possession of the lands to respondents 3 to 10. The same is assailed in this writ petition.

I have examined the impugned order. The same is wholly unsustainable as the sale deeds pertains to the period prior to coming into force of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act. Hence, the first respondent had no jurisdiction over the matter.

This Court in the order at Annexure-B passed Writ Petition No. 32377 of 1981 directed the Assistant Commissioner to dispose of the matter in accordance with law in the light of the observations made therein. The Assistant Commissioner, instead of disposing of the matter as directed by this Court, has wrongly referred it to the Tahsildar. The Assistant Commissioner committed a mistake in doing so without complying with the direction of this Court. He was required to consider and dispose of the matter under the provisions of PTCL Act. He had no jurisdiction to refer the case to the Tahsildar to consider under the provisions of KDR Act. On this ground also the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to comply with the directions issued by this Court in the aforementioned writ petition and dispose of the same within three months.

Parties are directed to maintain status quo regarding possession of the lands in question until the Assistant Commissioner dispose of the case.