AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Sri. Y. Hariprasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri. Mahale, Learned senior counsel appearing for contesting
respondents and Learned Govt. Advocate for Respondents-29 to 31. The Legality and correctness of the order passed by the Learned Single
Judge in W.P. Nos. 20083-20110/11 dt. 11th July 2011 is called in question in these appeals.
The undisputed facts in these appeals are as hereunder:
2 acre 01 guntas of land situated in Sy. No. 61 of T Dasarahalli village was granted to one Muniga s/o Munikandara on 29.4.1930 under the
Grand Rules, subject to condition that the same shall not be alienated for a period of 20 years. The said Muniga and his children sold 1 acre of
land in favour of S.G. Venkatayya - respondent-32 in these appeals under registered sale deed dt. 27.11.1972. Venkatayya after obtaining an
order of conversion from the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, converted the agricultural land into residential layout and sold the sites in
favour of respondents-1 to 28. Respondents-1 to 28 purchased the sites under different sale deeds and they have constructed buildings and have
been in occupation of the same.
The appellants herein claiming to be the legal heirs of Muniga filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore Sub-Division
for resumption of the land under the provisions of the PTCL Act, contending that there is violation of the conditions of grant contending that the
land in question was granted to a scheduled caste person by the revenue authorities and alienation made by Muniga and his children in the year
1972 is contrary to the provisions of the PTCL Act and therefore they sought resumption of the land.
The purchasers filed detailed objections before the Assistant Commissioner contending that there is no violation of the condition of grant in
alienating the land by Muniga and his children in favour of S.G. Venkatayya and thereafter they purchased the sites from Venkatayya as a bona
fide purchasers and any order that may be passed for resumption would affect their rights.
The Asst. Commissioner rejected the application filed by the appellants herein by his order dt. 10.3.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the
appellants filed an appeal before the Special Deputy Commissioner in No. SC ST 11/2008-09. The Special Deputy Commissioner allowed the
appeal and set aside the order of the Asst. Commissioner by his order dt. 20th May 2011, on the ground that alienation made by Muniga and his
children in favour of Venkatayya is in contravention of the terms and conditions of the grant on the ground that no permission has been obtained
before alienating the land.
Challenging the same, the respondents 1 to 28 filed the Writ Petition along with Venkatayya before the Learned Single Judge. The Learned
Single Judge having examined the matter in detail came to the conclusion that the land was granted on 29.3.1931 with a specific condition that the
land shall not be alienated for a period of 20 years from the date of issuance of saguvali chit and that the alienation has been made on 27.11.1972,
by that time, the period of prohibition to alienate the property had come to an end by efflux of time. The Learned Single Judge further held that the
alienation is made after the completion of the period of 20 years. Before commencement of the PTCL Act no prior permission was required to be
obtained to alienate the property in favour of the purchaser - Venkatayya. Accordingly, he allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the order
passed by the Deputy Commissioner by confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved by the order of the Learned Single Judge,
the present appeals are filed by the appellants.
Sri. Hariprasad, learned counsel for the appellants submits that though alienation is made and sale deed is executed, the appellants are in
possession of the property and in such circumstances this court in Ashwathnarayana & Others vs. Narasimhaiah & Others reported in 2012 (I)
AIR KAR 149 has ruled that the alienation has not been completed on account of non delivery of possession, the provision of PTCL Act would
attract and contending that still that the appellants are in possession of the property, he requests the court to set aside the order of the learned
Single Judge and confirm the order of the Deputy Commissioner.
Per contra, Mr. Mahale, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the ruling relied upon by the counsel for the
appellants has no application to the facts of this case because lands were sold in 1972 by Muniga and his children and purchasers were put in
possession of the property and thereafter the purchaser has obtained permission for conversion of the land to convert the land from agricultural to
non-agricultural purpose and sites have been demarcated in the land and that the purchasers have purchased the sites and constructed the
bungalows. Therefore, he contends that the contention of the appellants that they are in possession of the property is untenable and the same has
been rejected by the Learned Single Judge.
Having heard the counsel for the parties, the admitted facts in these appeals are that the lands were granted to a Scheduled caste person with a
condition that the same shall not be alienated for a period of 20 years. If the land has been granted in 1931 and if the same is sold in 1972, it
cannot be said that there is violation of the terms and conditions of the grant in alienating the property.
It is the contention of the appellants that they are in possession of the property. But the same cannot be accepted by any court because the
purchasers have produced number of photographs to show that residential buildings are in existence and buildings have been constructed therein. If
the buildings have come up and purchasers are in possession of the same, it cannot be contended by the appellants, still they are in possession of
the property. When the land has lost the character of agriculture and has been converted into a residential layout with number of buildings
constructed thereon, it is difficult for us to accept the contention of the appellants that they are still in possession. Therefore, the Judgment relied
upon by him is not applicable to the facts of the case on account of existence of the residential buildings constructed by the purchasers.
In the result, we do not see any merits in these appeals. Accordingly, appeals are dismissed.