Gangavva and Others vs Goudappa and Others

B.S. Patil, J.—These writ appeals are directed against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants herein.

Appellants claim that they are the grantees of different portions of lands under the provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, being the holders of village offices. Apparently, after regrant, they have sold the land to others. They applied seeking resumption and restoration of the land invoking Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short ''the PTCL'' Act). The Assistant Commissioner held that lands in question were not "granted lands" as defined under Section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act, as they were the lands granted in favour of the holders of the village offices as remuneration for discharge of their functions and hence they were not entitled for resumption and restoration of the land. The applicants/appellants herein filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5-A of the PTCL Act. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeals confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. This is how appellants challenged the orders passed by the authorities below, by filing the present writ petitions. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions holding that regrants had been made in favour of the holders of village offices under the provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, recognising their hereditary nature of the offices held by them hence the rights associated therewith did not fall within the definition of ''granted land''.

We have heard Sri Laxman T. Mantagani, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri C.S. Patil, learned Government Advocate for the respondent-State.

Definition of "granted land" contained in Section 3(1)(b) has three parts. First part defines the meaning of ''granted land'', the second part qualifies the purpose and the third part mentions what it excludes. Section 3(1)(b) reads as under:

""Granted Lands" means any land granted by the Government to a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes and includes land allotted or granted to such person under the relevant law for the time being in force relating to agrarian reforms or land ceilings or abolition of inams, other than that relating to hereditary offices or rights and the word "Granted" shall be construed accordingly."

Perusal of the definition would disclose that "Granted Lands" means lands granted by the Government to persons belonging to any Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The inclusive clause in the definition includes lands allotted or granted to persons belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe under the relevant laws in force relating to agrarian reforms or land ceilings or abolition of inams, in the term "granted land". However, there is an exclusionary clause which excludes lands which relate to hereditary office or hereditary rights from the ambit of the definition "granted land".

Section 2 (n) of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, defines the term "Village Office" as under:

""Village Office" means every village office, to which emoluments have been attached and which was held hereditarily before the commencement of the Constitution under an existing law relating to a village office, for the performance of duties connected with the administration or collection of the revenue or with the maintenance of order or with the settlement of boundaries or other matter of civil administration of a village, whether the services originally appertaining to the office continue or have ceased to be performed or demanded and by whatsoever designation the office may be locally known."

Section 4 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, abolishes all village offices and right to hold such office and other benefits attached to such village office subject to the condition as enumerated in clause (3) of Section 4.

Sub clause (3) of Section 4 states that abolition of such village office would be subject to the provisions of Section 5. As referred to earlier, Section 5 provides for regrant of the land resumed under Section 4 to the holder of the village office.

In the instant case, it is not in dispute that lands in question are lands re-granted under Section 5 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961. Section 5 states that the holder of the village office immediately prior to the appointed day be granted with the land which is resumed under clause (3) of Section 4 on payment of occupancy and such holder shall be deemed to be in occupation or holder of a ryotwari patta in respect of such land, primarily liable to pay land revenue to the State.

It is thus clear that village office to which emoluments have been attached has been held hereditary. Such an office when abolished, the holder of the office would be entitled for re-grant under Section 5. This right recognised under Section 5 is a statutory right conferred on the holder of the village office. If he makes an application seeking re-grant by paying the requisite amount calculated based on the land revenue assessed on the land, he would be entitled to have the occupancy registered and ryotwari patta granted. Thus, the regrant made under Section 5 is not a grant in favour of certain persons by the State Government without they having any statutory basis for their rights. It is in recognition of their existing statutory right under Section 5 that such regrant was made. If such pre existing statutory right is the reason behind grant of land to a particular person, even though the said person incidentally belonged to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, the re-grant made in his favour shall not fall within the ambit of the definition of "granted land" for the purpose of the PTCL Act. In fact, this position has been made clear in the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Mohammed Jaffar and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, (2002) ILR (Kar) 4693 : (2003) 1 KarLJ 337 : (2003) 1 KCCR 110 . Though the said judgment arose in the background of grant of occupancy rights made in favour of the tenants under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the principle behind the ratio laid down in the said case is aptly applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said case, the Full Bench after considering the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, contained in Sections 44, 45, 48-A, 77 and 77-A has observed in paragraph 13 that in view of Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, it was clear that conferment of occupancy rights was by the Land Tribunal and not by the Government; it was only a declaration of the pre-existing right which had been conferred to the tenant under Section 45 and vesting of land was subject to the right so conferred on the tenant for conferment of occupancy rights. Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act recognised the right of a tenant to get the occupancy right conferred in his favour by the Land Tribunal after an enquiry as stipulated under the Rules whereunder the tenant would be entitled for conferment of occupancy, only if, he was cultivating the land personally on 01.03.1974. Therefore, it has been held that conferment of occupancy rights was in recognition of the pre-existing right of the tenant to seek occupancy right over the land which was under his actual cultivation as on 01.03.1974.

In the instant case, Section 5 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 recognizes the right of the holder of the village office for regrant of land resumed under Section 4. As already adverted to above, Section 4, while abolishing the village offices and extinguishing the rights attached and appertaining the said village office, has made such extinction and abolition, subject to the provisions of Section 5 which recognizes the right for re-grant of the land on condition of payment of certain charges. Enquiry is contemplated by the Assistant Commissioner who acts as a quasi judicial Authority. Thus, there is pre-existing right recognized under Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, particularly in Section 5, in favour of the holder of the village office to get re-grant of the land which was attached to the village office and this village office is a hereditary office, so also the rights attached to the said village office.

Under Section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act, in the exclusionary clause, it is made clear that the lands relating to hereditary offices or rights are excluded from the ambit of the definition of the term ''granted land''. This is evident from the words ''other than that relating to hereditary offices or rights'' used in Section 3(1)(b). Therefore, as per the intention expressed by the Legislature, lands relating to hereditary offices or relating to hereditary rights are excluded from the definition of ''granted land''.

There is absolutely no room to interpret or construe the terms of the definition in any other manner. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was right and justified in holding that the lands in question would not fall within the scope of the definition ''granted land.

We do not find any merit in these appeals. Appeals are, therefore, dismissed. Consequently, interlocutory applications filed seeking dispensation and condonation of delay are also dismissed.