AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.—The Petitioner has raised the challenge to the Assistant Commissioner''s order, dated 31.1.2007 (Annexure-E) and the Deputy Commissioner''s order, dated 30.8.2010 (Annexure-G).
The facts of the case in brief are that the land measuring 5 acres standing at Survey No. 85/5 of the Diggenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Channagiri Taluk was granted to the fourth Respondent''s father Sri A.K. Ningappa on 29.11.1953. The Saguvali Chit was issued to him on 16.12.1963 imposing the non-alienation condition for a period of 15 years. On the death of the said Ningappa, his wife Smt. Rangamma and his children sold the said land to the Petitioner on 16.1.1981 for a consideration of Rs. 3,000/-. On the Respondent No. 4 (son and the L.R. of the original grantee) filing the petition for the invalidation of the sale deed executed in favor of the Petitioner and restoration of the land to him (the Respondent No. 4), the Assistant Commissioner, vide his order, dated 31.1.2007 (Annexure-E) allowed the fourth Respondent''s petition. The sale deed was declared as invalid. It was directed that the possession of the land be resumed to the Government and thereafter be given to the legal representative of the original grantee. This order of the Assistant Commissioner was challenged by the Petitioner in appeal No. PTCL/CR/1/07-08 before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner, by his order, dated 30.8.2010 (Annexure-G) dismissed the Petitioners appeal. This petition is instituted challenging the said concurrent orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner.
Sri P.M. Siddamallppa, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the land in question is not a granted land at all, as the said Ningappa had paid the sale consideration. According to the learned Counsel, it has to be taken as a sale and not the grant in favor of Ningappa. He also submits that Ningappa did not belong to Scheduled Caste at all.
Sri Siddamallappa has also a grievance that the Assistant Commissioner has acted on the Tahsildar''s report mechanically. Without prejudice to the aforesaid contentions, Sri Siddamallappa submits that if this Court is not inclined to allow this petition, the Petitioner be given some reasonable time to hand over the possession of the land in question. It is all the more so, because the Petitioner has invested huge amounts of money. She has grown the paddy and that the paddy crop is due for harvesting.
Sri R. Devdas, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that the following facts are not in dispute: a) the land is granted; b) the grantee Ningappa belong to Ad(sic) Karnataka, one of the enumerated Scheduled Castes; c) the alienation took place after the commencement of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (''PTCL Act'' for short).
Sri Devdas submits that even the Petitioner''s objection to the fourth Respondent''s petition shows that the Petitioner does not have any legally tenable resistance to the claims of the fourth Respondent.
The Respondent No. 4 is served, but has remained unrepresented.
My perusal of the impugned orders do not reveal any infirmity or arbitrariness. The land granted to a depressed class applicant belonging to Ad(sic) Karnataka for Rs. 45/-; that it was remitted to the Government treasury does not have the effect of converting the grant into a sale. That the Saguvali Chit was issued to the fourth Respondent''s father on 16.12.1962-63 is not in dispute. That it contained the non-alienation clause for 15 years is not in dispute. That, Ningappa''s wife and children executed the sale deed in respect of the land in question after the commencement of the PTCL Act is not in dispute. Finally that, no permission u/s 4(2) of the PTCL Act came to be obtained is also not in dispute. These being the indisputable facts and the circumstances of the case, the impugned orders are absolutely uphold able and accordingly they are upheld.
Appreciating that the Petitioner has been in possession of the land in question and that she has grown the paddy and that the paddy crop is to be harvested in ensuing November/December, this Court deems it just to permit the Petitioner to be in possession of the land in question till December 2010 and harvest the standing paddy crop. Any time after 31.12.2010 it is open to the Assistant Commissioner to take the possession of the land in question in accordance with law and resume it to the Government and thereafter restore it to the L.R.s of the original depressed class grantee.
This petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.