Venkateshwara B.K. vs State of Karnataka and Others

In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the, petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (Karnataka Act 2 1979) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the order No D.DIS.LND.CR. 136/79-80 dated 10.10.1979 (Annexure-C) of the Assistant Commissioner, Puttur Sub-Din. Puttur (hereinafter referred to as the AC).

Lands bearing Sy. Nos. 143/4 and 143/3 measuring O-51 cents, and O-67 cents respectively of Sampage village, Sullya Taluk were granted by the competent revenue officer to respondents 3 and 4 respectively accepting their claim that they were members of a scheduled caste.

Sometime in 1964, respondent No. 3 had leased the land granted to him to one Verghese Anthony who in turn leased the same to the petitioner in 1976.

On 25.5.1976 respondent No. had sold the land granted to him tothe petitioner for valuable consideration.

On applications made by respondents 3 and 4 under the Act for voiding the alienations made by them and for restoration of possession of the respective lands, the AC issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, in response to which he appeared before him and inter aila urged that the applicants respondents 3 and 4 were not members of a scheduled caste as on the day the lands were granted to them but were Christians by religion. On an examination of that and other contentions, the AC by his order dated 10th Octr, 1979 has voided the alienations and has directed the restoration of possession of the lands to respondents 3 and 4. But, in pursuance of the interim order made by this Court, the impugned order has not been implemented and the petitioner has continued to be in possession of the lands.

The Act is challenged as violative of Art. 14 and 19 of the Constitution.

As before the AC, the petitioner has reiterated that respondents 3 and 4 were not members of a scheduled caste as on the day the lands were granted to them and the finding of the AC to the contrary is based on no legal evidence.

In S.V. Krishnappa and others v. Munichannappa, WP 5516/79 etc. dt. 16.9.82, a Division Bench of this Court rejecting the very contentions urged for the petitioner has upheld the validity of the Act. In this view, the challenge of the petitioner to the validity of the Act is liable to be rejected.

Sri A. Keshava Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the finding recorded by the AC that respondents 3 and 4 were members of a scheduled caste on the ground that the lands had been granted to them on that basis and no other was really begging the question, perverse and manifestly illegal.

Sri L.M. Pandurangaswamy, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri G.S. Visweswara, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 sought to justify the impugned order of the AC.

Before the AC the petitioner specifically pleaded that respondents 3 and 4 were not members of a scheduled caste but were Christians by religion as on the day the grants were made to them. Rut, that plea is negatived by the AC solely on the ground that the lands-were granted to respondents 3 and 4 on their plea that they were members of a scheduled caste

A plea by respondents 3 and 4 that they were members of a scheduled caste or the acceptance of that plea by the revenue officer before grant does not necessarily establish that they were members of a scheduled caste. A serious question on the status of respondents 3 and 4 cannot be decided with reference to the claims made by them at the time of grant and their acceptance by the authority before grant. A mistake if any committed by the revenue officer cannot bind the petitioner who was not a party to the grant proceedings.

Whether and what action should be taken against respondents 3 and 4 including the resumption of lands granted to them if the authority ultimately finds that they were not members of a scheduled caste, had obtained grants masquerading as members of a scheduled Caste, is a matter that has to be decided by the authority separately. But, that does not take away the right of the petitioner to plead and establish that respondents 3 and 4 were not members of a scheduled caste. When such a plea is raised the authority is bound to investigate and decide the same for which purpose it is open to the parties to place all such evidence as they propose to place in that behalf

Unfortunately, the AC has really avoided to determine the issue. In the very nature of things, it is necessary to decide the crucial issue in the first instance and then decide the other subsidiary questions that arise for determination viz., what were the terms of the grant made to respondents 3 and 4 and what was the law prevailing at the time of grant and whether there has been any contravention of the terms of the grant. Even on the subsidiary questions the finding recorded by the AC are not clear and satisfactory.

On the above discussion it follows that the impugned order of the AC requires to be quashed and a direction issued to him to redetermine the matter in accordance with law.

In the light on my above discussion, I make the following orders and directions:

(a) I dismiss this writ petition in so far as it relates to the validity if the Act.

(b) I quash the impugned order and issue a writ in the nature of mandumus to respondent No. 2 to restore the case to its original file and redetermine the matter in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order.

(c) But in the circumstances of the case, I direct the parlies to bear their own cases.