Sri Narasimhaiah vs State of Karnataka and Others

B.S. Patil, J.—Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for respondents 1 to 3. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 27.11.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkaballapur District, Chikkaballapur, thereby setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkaballapur Sub-Division, Chikkaballapur and ordering that in the light of the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Mohammed Jaffar and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, , provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short ''the Act'') are not applicable to the land in question and therefore, question of resuming and restoring of the same under the provisions of the Act would not arise.

Admittedly, land bearing Sy. No. 44 measuring 1 acre 7 guntas situated at Narammanahalli Village of Chikkaballapur Taluk was cultivated by the petitioner as a tenant. The land stood vested with the State Government as on 01.03.1974 in terms of the provisions contained u/s 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. On an application filed by the petitioner in Form No. 7 claiming grant of occupancy rights, Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights holding that petitioner was cultivating the land as tenant as on the appointed date, that is, 01.03.1974. This is evident from the occupancy certificate issued vide Annexure-B.

Petitioner has executed General Power of Attorney in favour of respondents 4 and 5 who have later on sold the land in question in favour of 6th respondent vide registered sale deed dated 02.01.2006. Subsequently, petitioner moved the Assistant Commissioner seeking resumption and restoration of the land as per the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act. The Assistant Commissioner vide his order dated 29.07.2011 allowed the application holding that as petitioner belonged to scheduled caste and the land was a granted land, the same having been sold after the Act came into force, the transaction was null and void. A direction was given for resumption and restoration of the land. Aggrieved by the same, 6th respondent filed an appeal u/s 5A of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner has set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. In this background, petitioner is before this court.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate. Question whether the land in respect whereof occupancy rights have been granted in favour of a tenant under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act can be construed as granted land as defined u/s 3(b) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, wherever the tenant belonged to Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe and was amenable to the jurisdiction and operation of the PTCL Act fell for consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Mohammed Jaffar and Another v. State of Karnataka and Others. Examining the said issue, a Full Bench of this Court in paragraph 14 of the judgment referred to supra has held that in respect of lands for which occupancy rights are conferred u/s 48A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act would not be applicable as, such lands would not fall within the ambit of granted land as defined u/s 3(1)(b) of the Act. In the light of this decision, order passed by the Deputy Commissioner cannot be found fault with. As the land in the instant case does not fall within the definition of the term ''granted land'', provisions of the Act are not applicable.

Hence, this writ petition being devoid of merits dismissed.

Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within three weeks.