Bhujangshetty vs The State of Karnataka and Others

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner in these petitions is assailing the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner holding that the purchase made by the petitioner is in violation of the provisions contained in the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short ''the Act''). The appeal filed by the petitioner herein before the Deputy Commissioner against such order passed by the Assistant Commissioner has been dismissed. It is in that circumstance, the petitioner is before this Court.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers. For the purpose of narration of facts, the case as pleaded in W.P. No. 81246/2010 is referred while the contentions are similar in the connected petitions.

The petitioner herein claims to be the owner of the property bearing Sy. No. 53 of Navaraspur village measuring 32 acres 25 guntas. The manner in which the property was purchased has been referred to. The fourth respondent herein claiming to be a beneficiary of the land which has been assigned under a partition had filed an application holding that the purchase made by the petitioner is in violation of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner by the order dated 22.07.2008 has held that the transaction by which the petitioner has purchased the property is in violation of the Act and has directed restoration.

The petitioner had filed an appeal in LND/PTCL/APL/3/2008-09 before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner on referring to the very reasons assigned by the Assistant Commissioner though referred to the provisions of the Act and the decisions in that regard has approved the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner.

Keeping in view the contentions urged, a perusal of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner would disclose that in order to arrive at a conclusion that the land is a granted land has no doubt made a reference to the order No. LGL/1247 dated 21.01.1950 as being a grant made in favour of Sri Devendrappa. However, what is necessary to be noticed is that the very grant order itself or the nature of the grant nor the entries made in the land grant register with reference to the nature of the grant has been made. However, the said details relating to the grant has been referred to by deducing the same from the mutation orders that has been passed firstly in entering the name of the grantee and thereafter when the mutation orders were made when the partition had been made amongst the family members on 26.05.1996. The further entry made on 17.10.1997 and 28.04.1998 was also relied upon.

Be that as it may, the entire basis on which the Assistant Commissioner has arrived at the conclusion that there is violation of the provisions of the Act is based on such entries. This Court in the case of Nagendrappa and Another Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere and Others, had an occasion to consider a similar issue. Having taken note of the same, this Court was of the opinion that the reliance on such mutation entries alone to arrive at a conclusion that the land in question is a grant land and to hold that the purchase subsequently made in violation of the Act is held as not justified. While arriving at such conclusion, the learned Judge had also kept in view the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Pedda Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka, wherein the nature of consideration that is required before the authority arriving at a conclusion that there is violation of the provisions of the Act had been laid down.

In that view when it is noticed that in the instant case both the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner have mainly relied on the mutation entries and even though reliance has been made to the grant order number and the date, the nature of the grant made has not been referred to.

Therefore keeping in view the decisions referred to above, the orders impugned dated 22.07.2008 and 25.05.2009 in W.P. No. 81246/2010, 08.07.2008 and 25.05.2009 in W.P. No. 81244/2010 and 22.07.2008 and 25.05.2009 in W.P. No. 81245/2010 are not sustainable, they are accordingly quashed. The matters stand remitted to the Assistant Commissioner to restore the cases on file, issue fresh notice to the parties and thereafter consider the same in accordance with law and as per the directions issued in the decisions referred to above.

In terms of the above, the petitions stand disposed of.