BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K v. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No
Case Details
- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 52804/2017(GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1 . MOHAN MANGHANANI, MANAGING TRUSTEE, NEW HORIZON EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST, 100FT ROAD, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560038, REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, PROF S.N. VISHVESHVARIAH. 2 . NEW HORIZON EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST 100 FT ROAD, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560038 REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE MEMBER, AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, PROF. S.N. VISHVESHVARAIAH. (BY SRI M.S. RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR SMT.MAYA HOLLA, ADVOCATE (HOLLA & HOLLA ASSOCIATES)) ...PETITIONERS AND: 1 . KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES, No.14/3, II FLOOR, CFC BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2 . SRI. KITTAPPA,
Legal Reasoning
S/O SRI. BOMMANNA BOVI, - 2 - No.117, I MAIN ROAD, VEERABHADRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560085. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A.C. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2- WP ABATED VIDE ORDER DATED 29.03.2023) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE IN CASE No.LAND/307/2017 THAT THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBES, THE R-1 HEREIN IS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND C.A.V. ORDER The instant writ petition challenges the order/direction dated 13.10.2017 (Annexure-Q) passed by respondent No.1, the Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Bangalore. 2. The petitioner purchased the land bearing Survey No. 9, new Survey No. 42, measuring 1 Acre 35 Guntas, situated in Kadubeesanahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, from Chinnamma, wife of - 3 - Nadupanna, under a registered sale deed dated 10.02.2000. Chinnamma had previously purchased the said land from the erstwhile vendors. The proceedings commenced with an application under Section 5 of the SC/ST (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ("PTCL Act, 1978" for short) at the instance of respondent No. 2. 3. The land in question is claimed to have been allotted in favor of respondent No. 2, who sold it in the year 1957. Thereafter, it has changed hands through three subsequent transfers. 4. The application filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, 1978, was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 12.07.2016. The order of the Assistant Commissioner was challenged in W.P. No. 59521/2016 before this Court, wherein an interim order of stay was granted. In the meantime, respondent No. 2 filed an application before the first respondent-Commission, alleging illegal encroachment on the land by the petitioner. The first respondent-Commission initiated proceedings by - 4 - issuing a notice and scheduling an inspection. At this stage, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition. 5. Heard Shri M.S.Rajendra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri A.C.Manjunath, learned Counsel for respondent No.1. 6. Shri M.S. Rajendra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner purchased the land under a registered sale deed dated 10.02.2000 from Smt. Chinnamma, who, in turn, had purchased the land from the earlier vendors. The land was originally granted on 27.06.1931 in favour of Shri Bommanna Bhovi, father of respondent No. 2, who executed a sale deed in 1957 during his lifetime. Respondent No. 2 subsequently filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, 1978, before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the application, ordered the restoration of the land, and declared the sale deeds null and void. The petitioner challenged the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 12.07.2016 in W.P. No. 59521/2016. This Court, by order dated 10.12.2018, - 5 - allowed the writ petition and set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 12.07.2016. The said order has attained finality. 7. It is submitted that the grievance of respondent No. 2 was to seek the restoration of the land under the PTCL Act, 1978, and the matter was pending before this Court. The first respondent-Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain any complaint or adjudicate issues relating to immovable property. It is contended that a separate mechanism has been prescribed for dealing with granted land, and the first respondent-Commission lacks the authority to address matters governed by a specific enactment. 8. Learned Counsel relies on the judgment of this Court in M.B. Siddalingaswamy v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 4968, to contend that the Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain disputes between an individual and the State. - 6 - 9. Shri A.C. Manjunath, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, submits that a complaint was received regarding the illegal encroachment of land granted in favor of a member of the SC/ST community. The Commission has rightly initiated proceedings to inquire into the alleged encroachment. 10. Respondent No. 2 is reported to have passed away, and the petition has been abated against respondent No. 2 as per the order dated 29.03.2023. 11. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, it is evident that the dispute pertains to land granted in favor of Shri Bommanna Bhovi, father of respondent No. 2, in the year 1931. The said granted land was alienated by respondent No.2 in the year 1957 and subsequently underwent multiple transfers. The petitioner acquired the land through a registered sale deed dated 10.02.2000 from Smt. Chinnamma, wife of Nadupanna. Respondent No. 2 initiated proceedings under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, 1978, seeking restoration of the land. The Assistant - 7 - Commissioner, vide order dated 12.07.2016, allowed the application, directing the restoration of the land and declaring the sale deeds null and void. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred W.P. No. 59521/2016 before this Court. This Court, by order dated 10.12.2018, set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 12.07.2016, thereby upholding the validity of the sale deed dated 10.02.2000 in favor of the petitioner. It is submitted that the said order has attained finality. 12. The entire dispute between the parties falls within the purview of the PTCL Act, which provides a specific mechanism for redressal of grievances concerning granted land. The PTCL Act establishes a legal framework for both the allottee and the purchaser, ensuring compliance with grant conditions. Respondent No. 2 pursued his rights under the PTCL Act, alleging a violation of grant conditions and seeking protection and restoration of the land under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. The PTCL Act, 1978, is a self- contained code that lays down the procedural and substantive provisions for its enforcement. When a - 8 - specialized statutory mechanism is in place under the PTCL Act, respondent No.1, the Commission lacks jurisdiction to intervene, particularly when the nature of the dispute does not fall within its designated functions. 13. This Court in M.B.Siddalingaswamy (supra), while examining the scope of interference of the Commission, has held as under: the Commission is not empowered "15. A reading of the afore-extracted Sections 8 and 10 of the said Act, makes it abundantly clear that to adjudicate upon the rights of parties. The power vested with the Commission of Inquiry and submission of a report cannot be extended to adjudicate all disputes between individual and a State or a statutory authority. The powers conferred do not contemplate that the Commission like a civil Court and can examine matters adjudicate dispute and pronounce its decision either interim or final or issue a direction of the kind that is issued in the case on hand." 14. Furthermore, as held by this Court in C. Ramakrishnappa v. P.S. Venkateshaiah & Ors. (W.P. No. 21702/2018, D.D. 07.06.2022), the Commission lacks jurisdiction to entertain complaints and conduct inquiries unless the grievance pertains to safeguarding, protection, and the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled - 9 - Tribes community. An individual dispute, particularly relating to immovable property between private parties, is not maintainable before the Commission. 15. In the present case as well, the dispute pertains to the validity of the transfer of granted land in alleged violation of the grant conditions. Such matters are specifically governed and dealt with under the provisions of the PTCL Act, 1978. 16. In view of the foregoing, the proceedings initiated by respondent No. 1 - Commission are without jurisdiction and therefore not maintainable in law. Accordingly, the following:
Decision
ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed; (ii) The order/direction dated 13.10.2017 (Annexure-Q) passed by first respondent-the Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Bangalore is hereby quashed. Consequently, the proceedings initiated by the first respondent- - 10 - Commission against the petitioner are also quashed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE Yn.