Sri. Thimmaiah vs The Deputy Commissioner and Others

K.L. Manjunath, J.—The concurrent findings of the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya in Case No. PTCL 13/2006 dated 30th June, 2009 and confirmed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 26773/2009 dated 10th September, 2012 are called in question in this appeal. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

The appellant''s father was granted 4 acres 4 guntas of land in Sy. No. 36 of Anchebeeranahalli village, Kikkeri Hobli, K.R. Pet Taluk, Mandya District on upset price on 03.02.1960. The upset price was paid by him and he was put in possession. Out of 4 acres 4 guntas, 2 acres of land was sold by his father to respondents 3 to 7 under a registered sale deed dated 10th August 1970. Remaining extent of land is still in possession of the appellant. Contending that there is a violation of the order of grant in alienating the property in favour of respondents 3 to 7, the appellant initiated proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, Pandavapura in PTCL 14/2001-02. The Assistant Commissioner holding that the appellant''s father was prohibited to alienate the property for a period of 20 years, allowed the application filed by the appellant and an order of resumption was passed. Aggrieved by the same, respondents 3 to 7 filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya in PTCL 13/2006.

The Deputy Commissioner, after examining the relevant rules prevailing on the date of grant came to the conclusion that there was prohibition from alienating the property only for a period of 10 years from the date of grant, as the land was granted on upset price. In the circumstances, he held that the Assistant Commissioner has committed an error in allowing the application of the appellant. Accordingly, he allowed the appeal filed by respondents 3 to 7 and set-aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner by rejecting the application of the appellant for resumption of the land.

Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya, a writ petition came to be filed. The learned Single Judge having examined the relevant rules prevailing on the date of the grant, came to the conclusion that there was a restriction for alienation only for a period of 10 years. Accordingly, the writ petition came to be dismissed. Challenging the concurrent findings of the Deputy Commissioner and the learned Single Judge, the present appeal is filed.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the short question that arises for our consideration is:

Whether the learned Single Judge has committed an error in interfering with this order?

It is an undisputed fact that the Rules will always prevail over the printed form of the Saguvali chit (Grant Certificate). It is not in dispute that the land was granted to the appellant''s father on a reduced upset price. On the date of the grant, Rule 43(6)(a) of the Land Grant Rules read as hereunder: 43(6)(a) Every grant of land under Rule 43-A and every grant of registered occupancy of land under Clause (a) of Rule 43-H shall be subject to the condition:

(i) Where the grant is made free of cost, that the land granted shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years from the date of the grant; or

(ii) Where the grant is made for an upset price or for a reduced upset price, that the land grant shall not be alienated for a period of 10 years from the date of the grant.

When there was a prohibition to alienate the property, only for a period 10 years from the date of grant, considering the land was granted for a reduced upset price, if any alienation is made after 10 years, the same cannot be termed as a sale in violation of the grant. In such circumstances, the prohibition of PTCL Act would not apply. In the result, appeal is dismissed.