P. Basava Shankara Rao vs The State of Karnataka

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Government Advocate. The learned Counsel for the petitioner remains absent.

It is stated that the petitioner is the owner of property bearing Survey No. 1018/H, measuring 1 acre 60 cents and Survey No. 1018/I, measuring 3 acres 60 cents at Kudathani village, in Bellary district. The petitioner claims to have purchased the property under a registered sale deed in the year 1995 from one Chidananda and his name is reflected in the revenue records and he has been cultivating the land over the years. The above said property was said to have been initially granted in favour of Begara Sannathimmappa on 29.9.1936 under the Madras Board Standing Orders. Begara Sannathimmappa is said to have sold the said land in favour of one Sanna Shetty and Thippanna Shetty in the year 1958, who in turn, had mortgaged the lands in favour of one Kandre Basappa and subsequently sold the lands in favour of Kandre Basappa in the year 1968. After the death of Kandre Basappa, the lands were said to have been transferred in the name of Kandre Venkata Laxmamma, who had sold the property in favour of Chidanandappa and Chidanandappa had, in turn, sold the property in favour of the petitioner.

It is the case of the petitioner that the property granted in the year 1936 was thus the subject matter of several sale transactions and ultimately it was purchased by the petitioner in the year 1995. It further transpires that the lands were acquired under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (Hereinafter referred to as the ''KIAD Act'', for brevity) by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) and a final award having been made in respect of the properties, the compensation amount was also paid to the petitioners.

It is stated that respondents 5 to 9, who had not raised a claim in respect of the lands over the years, had then lodged a claim to the lands on the basis of a genealogical tree provided by a local official and claiming to be the legal heirs of the original grantee, late Begara Sannathimmappa, had approached the Assistant Commissioner in this regard with reference to the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (Hereinafter referred to as the ''PTCL Act'', for brevity)d. On receipt of the notice of the proceedings from the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner is said to have appeared before the Assistant Commissioner and had filed objections, inter alia, contending that the lands had been purchased by his predecessor-in-title in the year 1958 itself and the grant being of the year 1936, the non-alienation period, assuming it to be 10 years, was long over and the lands in question did not attract the provisions of the PTCL Act and that there was no illegality in the proceedings. However, the Assistant Commissioner had passed an order restoring the lands in question and also on noticing that the lands were acquired by the KIADB and the compensation amount having been paid to the petitioner, had directed not only restoration of the lands, but observed that the claimants were entitled for recovery of the compensation amount paid to the petitioner by an order dated 15.6.2002. Against the said order, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5-A of the PTCL Act, which was, in turn, dismissed confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner. It is that which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

It is pointed out that the Assistant Commissioner in his order had opined that the claimants were entitled to recovery of compensation from the petitioner on production of a Succession Certificate, to indicate that they were the legal heirs of the original grantee and merely having proceeded on the basis of a genealogical tree issued by the Village Accountant, the claimants claiming to be the legal heirs of the original grantee was not tenable. The further direction issued by the Assistant Commissioner to the KIADB to recover the award amount already paid to the petitioner and thereafter to pay the same to respondents 5 to 9 is without jurisdiction and there is no provision under the Act, which enables the authorities to pass such orders and to confer such benefit, without even being certain that the claimants were indeed the legal representatives of the erstwhile grantee.

In a similar circumstance, a writ petition was filed in WP 3528/2002 in Hospet Thippanna and another v. Jattappa and others, and that was dismissed by an order dated 31.3.2004. Against which, a writ appeal was filed in WA 2887/2004, which was also dismissed, by a judgment dated 6.12.2006.

It is significant that the said decisions are rendered in almost identical circumstances and would fully cover the present case on all fours. The legal propositions that are reaffirmed by the said decisions are as follows:

"i) There is no prescription of limitation for filing an application seeking resumption and restoration of the granted land under the provisions of the PTCL Act. And if on an enquiry conducted in terms of Section 5 of the PTCL Act, it is declared that the alienation or alienations are null and void, the authority has the power to resume the land and restore the same to the original grantee.

ii) The subsequent acquisition of the land by the State in favour of the KIADB, would not render the proceedings under the PTCL Act a nullity. The KIADB would be liable to pay the compensation amount to the applicant.

iii) The authorities under the Act have jurisdiction to direct the recovery of the amount of compensation paid to the alienee and ensure that the same is made over to the applicant."

In the light of the above there is no merit to be found in the present petition and the same is dismissed.