ANNAYAPPA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court: High Court of Karnataka

Bench: N S SANJAY GOWDA

Judgment date: 2024-12-20

Case summary

High Court of Karnataka judgment dated 2024-12-20. ANNAYAPPA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.

Judgment text

- 1 - WP No. 32202 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU TH DATED THIS THE 20 DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 32202 OF 2024 (SCST) BETWEEN: ANNAYAPPA. , S/O LATE MUNIYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT KUDUVATHI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 101. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. JAYNA KOTHARI. , SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. V. NAVEEN CHANDRA. , ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M. S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001 Digitally signed by REPRESENTED BY ITS KIRAN KUMAR R PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. Location: HIGH 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COURT OF KARNATAKA CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPUR-562 101. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPUR-562 101. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK OFFICE, - 2 - WP No. 32202 of 2024 CHIKKABALLAPUR-562 101. 5. RAVI AGARWAL, S/O LATE SURESH CHANDRA GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, No.

1581/C, BELLARY ROAD, OPPOSITE TO STANDARD BRICKS AND TILED, YELAHANKA. , BENGALURU-560 064. 6. SATHISH HEGDE, S/O RAMANNA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT No. 11, PALACE ORCHIDS APARTMENTS TH 9 CROSS, SADASHIVNAGAR, BANGALORE-560 080. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA. , AGA FOR R-1 TO R-4; SRI. H. N. SHASHIDHARA. , SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SUHAS. , ADV. , FOR C/R-5 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:21. 10. 2024 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN RA/SC ST/15/2023-24 WHICH IS MARKED AS ANNEXED HEREIN AS ANNEXURE-K, ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 02. 12. 2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. S. SANJAY GOWDA - 3 - WP No. 32202 of 2024 CAV ORDER 1. The undisputed facts, as could be ascertained from the pleadings and the synopsis filed by the caveator, are as follows. 2. On 28. 04.

1983, three acres of land in Sy. No. 168 of Kuduvathi village, Nandi Hobli, Chikkaballapura Taluk and District was granted to Muniyamma alias Pillakkamma w/o Narayanappa. 3. On 10. 06. 2005, Anniyappa—the son of late Muniyamma, and his brother executed an agreement of sale in favour of Suresh Chandra Gupta—the th father of the 5 respondent herein. It may be pertinent to state here that the period of 15 years prescribed for non-alienation had expired by then. 4. An application was made seeking prior approval of the Government as contemplated under Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (“The PTCL Act”) for the sale of 2 acres 20 - 4 - WP No. 32202 of 2024 guntas of land, which was the subject matter of the sale agreement. 5. The Government by an order dated 31. 08. 2006 accorded its permission for alienating of 2 acres 20 guntas of Sy. No. 168 (new Sy. No. 268) of Kuduvathi village, i. e.

, the granted land. The order of the Government granting permission was in the following terms: “r 51 J¯ïfPÉ 2006 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¸ÀaªÁ®AiÀÄ §ºÀĪÀĺÀrUÀ¼À PÀlÖqÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ 31. 08. 2006 ¬ÄAzÀ, ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀæzsÁ£À PÁAiÀiðzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ E¯ÁSÉ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ. EªÀjUÉ, f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ PÉÆïÁgÀ f¯Éè PÉÆïÁgÀ. ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ, «μÀAiÀÄ:- aPÀ̧¼Áî¥ÀÄgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ £ÀA¢ ºÉÆç½ PÀÄqÀªÀw UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À. £ÀA. 168 gÀ ¥ÉÊQ [ºÉƸÀ £ÀA. 268] 2-20 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀÄß ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ²æà CtÚAiÀÄå¥ÀàgÀªÀgÀÄ C£ÀĪÀÄw PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀ «ZÁgÀ. G¯ÉèÃR:- vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀA. J¯ï J£ï r/¹. Dgï/185/05-06 ¢£ÁAPÀ 14-03-2006 - 5 - WP No. 32202 of 2024 ***** ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «μÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ G¯ÉèÃTvÀ ¤ªÀÄä ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ aPÀ̧¼Áî¥ÀÄgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ £ÀA¢ ºÉÆç½ PÀÄqÀªÀw UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À. £ÀA. 168 [ºÉƸÀ £ÀA.

268] gÀ ¥ÉÊQ 2-20 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀÄß PÀ£ÁðmPÀ ¥Àj²μÀÖ eÁw /¥Àj²μÀÖ ¥ÀAUÀqÀUÀ¼À [PÉ®ªÀÅ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À ¥ÀgÀ¨sÁgÉ ¤μÉÃzsÀ] PÁAiÉÄÝ 1978 gÀ PÀ®A 4[2] gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ F PɼÀUÉ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀ μÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß «¢ü¹, ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄãÀÄß ²æà ¸ÀÄgÉñï ZÀAzÀæUÀÄ¥ÀÛ EªÀjUÉ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ²æà CtÚAiÀÄå¥Àà EªÀjUÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¸ÀªÁð£ÀĪÀÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÉ JAzÀÄ w½¸À®Ä ¤zÉÃð²vÀ£ÁVzÉÝãÉ. μÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ:- 1) F d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß PÉƼÀÄîªÀªÀgÀÄ ¨sÀÆ ¸ÀÄzsÁgÀuÉ PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄr CºÀðjgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. 2) CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ F d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß EwÛÃa£À ªÀiÁgÀÄPÀmÉÖ ¨É¯ÉUÉ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ 3) CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ F d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁr §AzÀ ºÀt¢AzÀ ¨ÉÃgÉ PÀqÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆAqÀÄPÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÀÄ “«²μÀÖ PÀqÀvÀ EzÀgÀ eÉÆvÉUÉ ®UÀwÛ¹zÉ” vÀªÀÄä £ÀA§ÄUÉAiÀÄ ¸À»/- [E. F±ÀégÀ£ÁAiÀÄPï] ¸ÀPÁðgÀ C¢üãÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð PÀAzÁAiÀÄ E¯ÁSÉ [¨sÀÆ. ªÀÄA] ¸À»/-vÀºÀ¹Ã¯ÁÝgï aPÀ̧¼Áî¥ÀÄgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ 6. As could be seen from said order, the Government had accorded permission to Annayappa—the husband of the grantee to - 6 - WP No. 32202 of 2024 alienate the land in favour of Suresh Chandra Gupta. 7.

On the basis of this permission accorded by the Government, the Deputy Commissioner proceeded to issue an official memorandum dated 28. 09. 2006 in the following terms: £ÀA. J¯ïJ£ïr ¹Dgï:185:05-06 f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÀªÀgÀ PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄ PÉÆïÁgÀ f¯Éè PÉÆïÁgÀ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:28-9-2006 «μÀAiÀÄ:- aPÀ̧¼Áî¥ÀÄgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ PÀÄqÀªÀw UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À. £ÀA. 168 (ºÉƸÀ £ÀA. 268) gÀ°è£À 2-20 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ²æà CtÚAiÀÄå¥Àà gÀªÀjUÉ C£ÀĪÀÄw ¤ÃqÀĪÀ «ZÁgÀ. G¯ÉèÃR:- 1) ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæ £ÀA Cgïr 51 J¯ïfPÉ 2006 ¢:31-6-2006 2) ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÀ«ÄÃμÀ£Àgï aPÀ̧¼Áî¥ÀÄgÀ G¥À «¨sÁUÀ gÀªÀgÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£À £ÀA. J®J£ïr ¹Dgï:95:05-06 ¢: 26-9- 2005 3) vÀºÀ¹Ã¯ÁÝgÀ aPÀ̧¼Áî¥ÀÄgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ gÀªÀgÀ ªÀgÀ¢ £ÀA. J®J£ïr ¹Dgï:56-05-06 ¢£ÁAPÀ:5-9-2005 _ _ _ D¢üPÀÈvÀ eÁÕ¥À£À aPÀ̧¼Áî¥ÀÄgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ £ÀA¢ ºÉÆç½, PÀÄqÀªÀw UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À. £ÀA. 168 gÀ°è£À 2-20 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ²æÃ.

CtÚAiÀÄå¥Àà ©£ï ªÀÄĤAiÀĪÀÄä gÀªÀgÀÄ PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀ «ZÁgÀzÀ°è C¢üãÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ G¯ÉèÃR (2) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ (3) gÀAvÉ ¥ÀÛ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CfðzÁgÀjUÉ PÀÄqÀĪÀw UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À. £ÀA. 168 gÀ°è 2-20 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß PÀæªÀiÁAPÀ: J®J£ïr: 2168:72-73 gÀAvÉ ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ - 7 - WP No. 32202 of 2024 ªÀiÁr ¢£ÁAPÀ:28-4-83 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½ aÃnAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¥Àj²μÀÖ eÁw : ¥Àj²μÀÖ ªÀUÀðPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀªÀgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CzÀÝjAzÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀƪÁð£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É PÉÆÃj ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ²¥sÁgÀ¸ÀÄì ªÀiÁqÁ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ ¸ÀzÀj ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹ G¯ÉèÃR (1) gÀAvÉ ¥ÀƪÁð£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛ. ªÉÄîÌAqÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À »£À߯ÉAiÀÄ°è ºÁUÀÆ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥Àj²μÀÖ eÁw : ¥Àj²μÀÖ ªÀUÀðUÀ¼À (ºÀ®ªÀÅ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À ¥ÀgÀ¨sÁgÉ ¤μÉÃzÀ) PÁAiÉÄÝ 1978 gÀ°è£À PÀ®A 4(2) gÀAvÉ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ μÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß «¢ü¹ PÀÄqÀĪÀw UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À. £ÀA. 168 (ºÉƸÀ £ÀA. 268) gÀ°è£À 2-20 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ²æÃ. CtÚAiÀÄå¥Àà gÀªÀjUÉ C£ÀĪÀÄw ¤Ãr¢.

μÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ:- 1) CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ F d«ÆãÀ£ÀÄß EwÛÃa£À ªÀiÁgÀÄPÀmÉÖ ¨É¯ÉUÉ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. 2) CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¥Àæ²ßvÀ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¨sÀÆ ¸ÀÄzsÁgÀuÉ PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ£ÀéAiÀÄ CºÀðjgÀĪÀªÀjUÉà ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ 3) CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ F d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁrzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É §AzÀ ºÀt¢AzÀ §¼ÀîUÉgÉ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À. £ÀA. 32 gÀ°è£À 2-14 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß Rjâ¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ. vÀºÀ¹Ã¯ÁÝgï, aPÀ̧¼Áî¥ÀÄgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ CzÉñÀzÀAvÉ μÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ½UÉ §zÀÝ£ÁVgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ CfðzÁgÀjAzÀ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ ªÀÄÄZÀѽPÉ ¥ÀqÉzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀ¨sÁgÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ »A§gÀºÀ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹zÉ. ¸À»/-f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ PÉÆïÁgÀ f¯Éè. ” 8. As could be noticed from this official memorandum, the same was issued pursuant to the prior approval granted by the Government on 31. 08. 2006. - 8 - WP No. 32202 of 2024 However, while issuing this official memorandum, the permission that had been accorded by the Government for alienation in favour of Suresh th Chandra Gupta (the 5 respondent’s father) was not mentioned in the official memorandum. 9.

On the basis of this official memorandum, an endorsement dated 01. 02. 2007 was issued by the Tahsildar in the following terms: £ÀA. J¯ïJ£ïr:¹Dgï:56/2005-06 vÀºÀ¹Ã¯ÁÝgÀªÀgÀ PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄ aPÀ̧¼Áî¥ÀÄgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ aPÀ̧¼Áî¥ÀÄgÀ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:1-2-2007 «μÀAiÀÄ:- aPÀ̧¼Áî¥ÀÄgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ £ÀA¢ ºÉÆç½ PÀÄqÀªÀw UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À. £ÀA. 168 [ºÉƸÀ £ÀA. 268] 2-20 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ²æà CtÚAiÀÄå¥Àà ©£ï ªÀÄĤAiÀĪÀÄä gÀªÀjUÉ C£ÀĪÀÄw ¤ÃqÀĪÀ «ZÁgÀ. G¯ÉèÃR:- f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, PÉÆïÁgÀf¯Éè, PÉÆïÁgÀgÀªÀgÀ C¢üPÀÈvÀ eÁÐ¥À£À ¸ÀASÉÊ J¯ïJ£ïr:¹Dgï 185:05-06: ¢£ÁAPÀ:28-9-06 ________ »A§gÀºÀ _________ aPÀ̧¼Áî¥ÀÄgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ £ÀA¢ ºÉÆç½ PÀÄqÀªÀw UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÁ¹AiÀiÁzÀ ²æà CtÚAiÀÄå¥Àà ©£ï ªÀÄĤAiÀĪÀÄägÀªÀjUÉ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ £ÀA¢ºÉÆç½ PÀÄqÀĪÀw UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À. £ÀA 168 (ºÉƸÀ £ÀA. 268)gÀ°è£À 2-20 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, PÉÆïÁgÀ f¯Éè, PÉÆïÁgÀÀªÀgÀÄ G¯ÉèÃðR ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è ¸ÀÆa¹gÀĪÀAvÉ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ μÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ½UÉ M¼À¥ÀlÄÖ ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀgÀ¨ÁgÉ - 9 - WP No.

32202 of 2024 ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä C£ÀĪÀÄw ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛ. ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄäUÉ ZÉPÀÄÌ §A¢ F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉgÀÄvÉÛ. ZÀPÀÄ̧A¢: ¥ÀƪÀðPÉÌ ¸À. £ÀA. 269 ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ ¸À. £ÀA 168 GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ ¸À. £ÀA168: zÀQëtPÉÌ ¸À. £ÀA:1638 μÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ:- 1) CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ F d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß EwÛÃa£À ªÀiÁgÀÄPÀmÉÖ ¨É¯ÉUÉ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ 2) CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¥Àæ²ßvÀ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¨sÀÆ ¸ÀÄzsÁgÀuÉ PÁAiÉÄÝ C£ÀéAiÀÄ CºÀðjgÀĪÀªÀjUÉ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ 3) CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ F d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁrzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É §AzÀ ºÀt¢AzÀ §¼ÀîUÉgÉ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À. £ÀA. 32 gÀ°è£À 2-14 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß Rjâ¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ. 4) ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä C£ÀĪÀÄw ¤ÃrzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ¢AzÀ 4 wAUÀ¼À M¼ÀUÉ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀ¢zÀÝ°è C£ÀĪÀÄw ¥ÀvÀæ gÀzÁÝUÀÄwÛzÉ. JAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. ¸À»/-vÀºÀ¹Ã¯ÁÝgï aPÀ̧¼Áî¥ÀÄgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ²æà CtÚAiÀÄå¥Àà ©£ï ªÀÄĤAiÀĪÀÄä PÀÄqÀĪÀw UÁæªÀÄ £ÀA¢ ºÉÆç½” 10. The above-extracted endorsement also did not reflect the fact that the State Government had accorded permission to Annayappa to sell the land to Suresh Chandra Gupta.

In other words, though the permission was accorded specifically for alienation of the granted land to Suresh Chandra Gupta, the - 10 - WP No. 32202 of 2024 subsequent orders of the Tahsildar and the Deputy Commissioner did not reflect this particular fact. 11. Annayappa, instead of alienating the said property to Suresh Chandra Gupta, proceeded to execute a sale th deed in favour of T. R. Sathish Hegde—the 6 respondent herein. In this sale deed, there is a specific recital to the fact that permission for the sale had been accorded by the Government vide the letter dated 31. 08. 2006 bearing number RD:51:LGK:2006 and as per the Tahsildar’s endorsement in LND:CR:56:2005-06 dated 01. 02. 2007. 12. It may be pertinent to state here that this reference is actually to the order of the Tahsildar and not the order of the Government. 13. Two months after the execution of the sale deed in favour of T. R. Sathish Hegde, Suresh Chandra Gupta proceeded to institute a suit in O. S. No.

203/2007 against Annayappa, his brother and also against T. R. - 11 - WP No. 32202 of 2024 Sathish Hegde. Apart from seeking execution of the sale deed, Suresh Chandra Gupta also sought a declaration that the sale deed executed on 19. 04. 2007 in favour of T. R. Sathish Hegde was null and void. 14. In this said suit, Suresh Chandra Gupta categorically stated that Annayappa and his brother had agreed to obtain the sale permission from the Government of Karnataka, but, subsequently, they became negligent and, thereafter, he along with Annayappa and his brother went to the Government and obtained permission on 01. 02. 2007. Thus, the fact that permission was sought and accorded by the Government on 01. 02. 2007 was clearly stated by Suresh Chandra Gupta in the suit filed against Annayappa and T. R. Sathish Hegde. 15. Annayappa and his brother entered appearance and contested the suit. They denied the assertion that Suresh Chandra Gupta was an agreement holder. - 12 - WP No.

32202 of 2024 They also denied that a joint application was made to the Government in the year 2005. However, it was admitted that the Government had permitted the plaintiff to alienate the suit property. In fact, they stated as follows: “The defendants are intending to sell the property, hence they obtained sale permission from the government on 1. 2. 2007. Upon the sale permission the defendants entered into agreement of sale dated 5. 1. 2005 agreeing to sell the property in favour of one T. R. Sathish Hegde S/o late T. G Ramanna Hegde, 51 years, th residing at G-8, Palace Orchard Apartment, 9 main, Sadashivanagar, Bangalore. After getting the sale permission, the defendants have executed the regd. Sale deed in favour of Satish Hegde on 19. 03. 2007 as per the recitals of sale agreement dated 5. 1. 2005 and delivered the possession to him. Now the said T. R Satish Hegde is in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property who has acquired the right by virtue of regd.

Sale deed dated 19. 3. 2007. ” - 13 - WP No. 32202 of 2024 16. As could be seen from the above averments in the written statement, Annayappa admitted that permission had been granted by the Government on 01. 02. 2007 and, on the basis of this permission, they had entered into an agreement of sale with T. R. Sathish Hegde and had also executed a sale deed in his favour. 17. As noticed above, the permission dated 01. 02. 2007 was, in reality, the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar on the basis of the official memorandum issued by the Deputy Commissioner which was in turn issued on the basis of the permission accorded by the Government on 31. 08. 2006 under which the Government had accorded permission for sale of the granted land to Suresh Chandra Gupta. Thus, Annayappa and his brother basically utilized the permission granted by the Government to sell the land to Suresh Chandra Gupta to execute a sale deed in favour of T. R. Sathish Hegde and they just took - 14 - WP No.

32202 of 2024 advantage of the fact that the official memorandum and the Tahsildar’s endorsement did not bear the name of Suresh Chandra Gupta. 18. This suit filed by Suresh Chandra Gupta, after contest, was ultimately decreed in his favour by a judgment and decree dated 28. 06. 2016. The Trial Court directed that a sale deed be registered in favour of Suresh Chandra Gupta within three months and also declared that the sale deed dated 19. 04. 2007 which had been executed by Annayappa and his brother in favour of T. R. Sathish Hegde was null and void, and was not binding on Suresh Chandra Gupta. An order of injunction was also granted in favour of Suresh Chandra Gupta. 19. An appeal was also preferred as against the said judgment and decree for specific performance only by T. R. Sathish Hedge, who had purchased the property under the sale deed dated 19. 04. 2007 in - 15 - WP No. 32202 of 2024 R. A. No. 70/2016. This appeal was also dismissed by the judgment dated 16. 10. 2017.

It is stated that as against this dismissal, a regular second appeal in RSA No. 1384/2021 has been filed and is pending adjudication before this Court. 20. In the interregnum, Annayappa filed an application seeking resumption of the lands and to declare the alienation that he had made in favour of T. R. Sathish Hegde to be null and void. This application was made in the year 2015-16. It may be pertinent to state here that in these proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, the son of Suresh Chandra th Gupta i. e. , the 5 respondent herein was also nd arraigned as the 2 respondent. 21. During the pendency of these proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, the son of Suresh Chandra Gupta sued for the execution of a decree that had been passed in O. S. No. 203/2007 and confirmed in R. A. No. 70/2016. The Executing Court proceeded to - 16 - WP No. 32202 of 2024 execute a sale deed in favour of Ravi Agarwal on 05. 10. 2020.

It may be pertinent to state here that in the sale deed, the Civil Court clearly stated that the alienation was being made pursuant to the order of the Government dated 31. 08. 2006 and also the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar dated 01. 02. 2007. 22. The Assistant Commissioner by an order dated 03. 03. 2023 proceeded to accept the said application and ordered resumption of the land. The reason given by the Assistant Commissioner was that the alienation of the granted land was without securing prior approval of the Government under Section 4(2). The operative portion of the order reads as follows: “DzÉñÀ aPÀ̧¼Áî¥ÀÄgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, £ÀA¢ ºÉÆç½, PÀÄqÀĪÀw UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À. £ÀA. 168 ºÉƸÀ ¸À. £ÀA. 268 gÀ°è 2-20 JPÀgÉ/UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄäUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ªÀÄAdÆjzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ ¥ÀƪÁð£ÀĪÀÄw ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÁzÀÞjAzÀ PÀ®A 4(2) gÀ C£ÀéAiÀÄ ¥Àj²μÀØ eÁw (D¢ - 17 - WP No. 32202 of 2024 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ) ªÀåQÛUÀ½UÉ ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀƪÁð£ÀĪÀÄw ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀĪÀAw®è.

F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è EAvÀºÀ C£ÀĪÀÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj PÀæAiÀÄzÀ ªÀ»ªÁlÄ PÀ®A 4(2) G®èAWÀ£É DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀgÀ C£ÀéAiÀÄ F d«Ää£À ¸ÀA§AzsÀ DVgÀĪÀAvÀºÀ PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæzÀ J¯Áè ªÀ»ªÁlÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¹AzsÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ±ÀÆ£Àå JA§ÄzÁV WÉÆö¹zÉ. PÀ®A 5(1)(a) gÀAvÉ £À£ÀUÉ zÀvÀÛªÁVgÀĪÀ C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß §¼À¹ F d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß IÄt¨sÁgÀ gÁ»vÀåªÁV ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ªÀ±ÀPÉÌ ¥ÀqÉAiÀįÁVzÉ. PÀ®A 5(1) C£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀÄÆ® ªÀÄAdÆjzÁgÀgÀ ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄìzÁgÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ 25 ªÀμÀðUÀ¼À PÁ® ¥ÀgÀ¨sÁgÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÁgÀzÉA§ μÀgÀwÛUÉ M¼À¥ÀlÄÖ ªÀÄgÀĪÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÉ. ºÁUÀÆ PÀæAiÀÄzÁgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¤AiÀĪÀÄ£ÀĸÁgÀ d«Ää¤AzÀ ºÉÆgÀzÀÆr ªÀÄÆ® ªÀÄAdÆjzÁgÀjUÉ ¸ÀzÀj d«Ää£À ¸Áé¢üãÀ£ÀĨsÀªÀ ©r¹PÉÆqÀ®Ä vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgï, aPÀ̧¼Áî¥ÀÄgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ EªÀjUÉ ¸ÀÆa¹zÉ. ” 23.

The Deputy Commissioner, on consideration of the appeal filed before him, came to the conclusion that the alienation made in favour of Ravi Agarwal could not be the subject matter of a proceeding under the PTCL Act since the Government had accorded permission under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act. He accordingly proceeded to allow the appeal. - 18 - WP No. 32202 of 2024 24. Being aggrieved by this order of the Deputy Commissioner rejecting the application for resumption, the present writ petition has been filed. 25. Smt. Jayna Kothari, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the order of the Deputy Commissioner could not be sustained in view of the fact that the entire claim of Suresh Chandra Gupta and, subsequently, his son Ravi Agarwal was on the basis of an agreement of sale dated 10. 06.

2005 and since Section 3(e) of the Act prohibited the transfer which included an agreement to sell, the entire transaction leading up to the sale in favour of the Ravi Agarwal was null and void. She sought to highlight the fact that the provisions of the Act would stand attracted even if there was an agreement of sale, and since there was an agreement of sale dated 10. 06. 2005, the subsequent permission allegedly obtained by Suresh Chandra Gupta would be of no avail. - 19 - WP No. 32202 of 2024 26. She also sought to put forth arguments that there were circulars which would indicate that the permissions granted were for a limited period and if alienation was not made within the limited period, the same would lapse. Learned Senior counsel submitted that since the initial transfer i. e. , the agreement of sale was hit by the provisions of Section 4 of the PTCL Act, the Deputy Commissioner could not have rejected the application for resumption. 27. Per contra, Sri. H. N.

Shashidhara, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that the order of the Deputy Commissioner could not be found fault with. He submitted that the application for resumption filed by Annayappa was to nullify the sale deed that had been executed in favour of T. R. Sathish Hegde and there was no challenge whatsoever to the agreement of sale. He submits that it was nobody’s case that the application for - 20 - WP No. 32202 of 2024 resumption was made on the ground that the agreement of sale amounted to a transfer as defined under the Act and, therefore, the land was to be resumed. 28. He submitted that the sale in favour of T. R. Sathish Hegde was admittedly with the prior permission of the Government as could be seen from the sale deed which, in fact, referred to the permission dated 01. 02. 2007. He submitted that if the sale deed executed in favour of T. R.

Sathish Hegde was with the prior approval of the Government, the entire proceedings seeking resumption by Annayappa would have to be considered to be one without jurisdiction. He submitted that as on the date of the application being made for resumption, there was no sale deed executed in favour of Ravi Agarwal, and Annayappa was only keen on getting the sale deed executed in favour of T. R. Sathish Hegde to be declared as null and void. - 21 - WP No. 32202 of 2024 29. Learned Senior counsel also submitted that in reality, Annayappa and T. R. Sathish Hegde had misutilised the order of permission granted by the Government under Section 4(2), which was specifically granted for an alienation to be made in favour of Suresh Chandra Gupta. He submitted that once permission was granted for sale of the land to Suresh Chandra Gupta, necessarily, the sale ought to have been made only in favour of Suresh Chandra Gupta.

Since Annayappa had not come forward to sell the land, he had no other option but to enforce the agreement of sale, in which he ultimately succeeded. 30. He further submitted that the order of the Government according permission under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act was specifically brought forth by Suresh Chandra Gupta in the suit that he had filed, to which not only Annayappa but also T. R. Sathish Hegde had been arraigned as defendants. The factum of permission being granted is clearly - 22 - WP No. 32202 of 2024 admitted by Annayappa and in light of this admitted fact, it would not be permissible for Annayappa to seek resumption of the lands. 31. In light of the arguments advanced above, the only question that would arise for consideration in this writ petition is: Whether the Deputy Commissioner was justified in dismissing the application for resumption filed by Annayappa. 32. As narrated above, it is an admitted fact that Suresh Chandra Gupta had instituted a suit in O. S. No.

203/2007 seeking to enforce the agreement of sale that he had entered into with Annayappa and in this suit, he categorically stated that permission had been accorded by the Government for sale of the land in his favour. This assertion that permission had been accorded by the State Government for sale of the land was admitted by Annayappa, but it was stated that on the basis of this permission dated - 23 - WP No. 32202 of 2024 01. 02. 2007, they had sold the land to T. R. Sathish Hegde. 33. At the outset, it is to be stated here that if this was the admitted position that there was prior permission obtained for the sale of land in favour of T. R. Sathish Hegde, the proceedings initiated before the Assistant Commissioner seeking a declaration — that the sale deed executed in favour of T. R. Sathish Hegde was null and void and that the land was to be resumed — would be wholly without jurisdiction and would thus have to necessarily fail.

This is because if the State has accorded permission for sale of a granted land, it is obvious that proceedings under the PTCL Act would not be maintainable if alienation had been made on the strength of such permission. 1 34. As could be seen from Section 4(1) , proceedings for resumption would be maintainable only if the land 1 Prohibition of transfer of granted lands: (1) Notwithstanding anything in any law, agreement, contract or instrument, any transfer of granted land made either before or after the commencement of this Act, in contravention of the terms of the grant of such land or the law providing for such grant, or sub-section (2) shall be - 24 - WP No. 32202 of 2024 has been sold in contravention of the terms of the grant or under Section 4(2) if the land has been alienated without the prior approval of the Government. 35.

In this case, as already stated above, the State Government had granted permission for alienation of the land and, therefore, the initiation of the proceedings under the PTCL Act was itself without jurisdiction. 36. The petitioners have themselves produced the permission that was accorded by the Government for alienation of the land as per Annexure–L. This permission granted by the Government specifically permits Annayappa to sale the granted land in favour of Suresh Chandra Gupta. This approval dated 31. 08. 2006 was the reason for the Deputy Commissioner to issue an official memorandum on 28. 09. 2006. In fact, in the reference to the said null and void and no right, title or interest in such land shall be conveyed or be deemed ever to have conveyed by such transfer. - 25 - WP No. 32202 of 2024 official memorandum, this permission of the Government dated 31. 08. 2006 is referred to and so also in the body of the official memorandum. 37.

Merely because in this consequential official memorandum issued by the Deputy Commissioner, the name of the Suresh Chandra Gupta is omitted, this cannot lead to an inference that Annayappa had been accorded permission to alienate the land in favour of any person of his choice. Annayappa chose to accept the permission accorded by the Government on 31. 08. 2006, which was specifically for alienation in favour of Suresh Chandra Gupta and, therefore, Annayappa was bound by this order more so when he had chosen not to challenge the same. The subsequent endorsement issued by the Tahsildar is also based on the official memorandum of the Deputy Commissioner dated 28. 09. 2006. It is therefore clear that both the official memorandum of the Deputy Commissioner dated 28. 09. 2006 and the - 26 - WP No. 32202 of 2024 endorsement dated 01. 02.

2007 by the Tahsildar are relatable only to the permission granted to Annayappa to sell the granted land in favour of Suresh Chandra Gupta and it leaves no room for doubt that permission had been accorded for the sale of land specifically to Suresh Chandra Gupta. 38. If Annayappa had not agreed to act upon the said permission and had chosen to alienate the land to T. R. Sathish Hegde, it is obvious that Suresh Chandra Gupta had the legal right to seek enforcement of the agreement of sale that had been executed in his favour. As already noticed above, Suresh Chandra Gupta went to the Civil Court with the specific plea that permission had been accorded by the State to alienate the land in his favour and despite this permission, Annayappa was not forthcoming to execute the sale deed. Thus, way back in the year 2007 when O. S. No. 203/2007 was instituted, both Annayappa and Sathish Hegde were aware of the - 27 - WP No.

32202 of 2024 fact that Suresh Chandra Gupta had contended that he had secured permission to purchase the land. Neither T. R. Sathish Hegde nor Annayappa had chosen to challenge the permission granted by the Government to the effect that the permission could not be limited for alienation in favour of only Suresh Chandra Gupta and this acceptance of the plea of Suresh Chandra Gupta estopped them from contending that Suresh Chandra Gupta had no power to purchase the property. 39. Since, there was permission accorded for alienation of the property in favour of Suresh Chandra Gupta, the Trial Court proceeded to decree the suit in which T. R. Sathish Hegde and Annayappa were parties. Annayappa chose to accept the decree granted in favour of Suresh Chandra Gupta by not preferring an appeal. This would therefore indicate that Annayappa basically accepted that the execution of sale deed in favour of Suresh Chandra Gupta as ordered by the - 28 - WP No.

32202 of 2024 Civil Court was correct and since the Trial Court executed the sale deed on the basis of the permission that had been accorded by the State Government under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, neither the Assistant Commissioner nor the Deputy Commissioner could assume jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings under the PTCL Act for resumption. Consequently, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner to the effect that the alienation made in favour of the son of Suresh Chandra Gupta could not come within the purview of the PTCL Act and he has rightly dismissed the proceedings that had been initiated by Annayappa for resumption. 40. Smt. Jayna Kothari, however, sought to lay great emphasis on the judgment rendered by the Apex 2 Court in the case of Dharma Naika to contend that the agreement of sale entered into in favour of Suresh Chandra Gupta would itself be hit by the 2 Dharma Naika Vs. Rama Naika – (2008) 14 SCC 517 - 29 - WP No.

32202 of 2024 provisions of the PTCL Act and a subsequent sale would be null and void. It is to be stated here that there can be no quarrel with the proposition that an agreement of sale would also come within the meaning of transfer as defined under the Act and a grantee can approach the Assistant Commissioner for resumption even if he has executed an agreement of sale. 41. However, as in the instant case, if the purchaser and the grantee had entered into an agreement of sale and thereafter sought permission of the Government to secure permission, it is obvious that the agreement of sale, by itself, would actually stand ratified by the Government and the Government was, in effect, granting permission to conclude this transaction. It cannot be in dispute that the grantee can enter into an agreement to sell the granted land subject to the Government according permission. If the Government accepts the request of the grantee - 30 - WP No.

32202 of 2024 and accords permission, the agreement of sale would stand ratified by the Government and the subsequent execution of the sale deed by the grantee in favour of a purchaser can never attract the provisions of the PTCL Act. 42. The matter can be looked at from another angle. The sale in favour of T. R. Sathish Hegde was the cause for Annayappa to approach the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of the PTCL Act for resumption. The proceedings against T. R. Sathish Hegde would be without jurisdiction, as already stated above, since there was permission to alienate the land as per the endorsement dated 01. 02. 2007 executed by the Tahsildar. If Suresh Chandra Gupta had approached the Civil Court seeking to enforce an agreement of sale in his favour and in the said suit, T. R. Sathish Hegde and the grantee were parties — where the Civil Court ultimately proceeded to decree the suit in favour of - 31 - WP No.

32202 of 2024 Suresh Chandra Gupta and also held that the sale deed in favour of T. R. Sathish Hegde was not binding on Suresh Chandra Gupta — it is obvious that the sale in favour of T. R. Sathish Hegde would actually enure to the benefit of T. R. Sathish Hegde. 43. It is to be noticed here that if it is the case of the grantees that the permission of the Government dated 01. 02. 2007 was not specific to any person, the alienation made in favour of T. R. Sathish Hegde would be valid and consequently, the decree passed in the Civil Court, to which T. R. Sathish Hegde was a party, would also bring the granted land outside the purview of the PTCL Act. Thus, viewed from any angle, it cannot be said that the alienation made in favour of the petitioner herein on the basis of the decree of the Civil Court can be illegal, since it was based on the permission accorded by the Government under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act. - 32 - WP No. 32202 of 2024 44.

An argument was also advanced by the learned Senior counsel Smt. Jayna Kothari that the permissions granted by the Government under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act was limited by time and, therefore, the alienation made in favour of T. R. Sathish Hegde was illegal. This argument cannot be accepted for the following reason. 45. Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act merely states that there cannot be an alienation of a granted land after the commencement of the Act, without the previous permission of the Government. The said provision does not permit of any conditions to be imposed for granting of permission. 46. It is to be noticed here that under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, even a person who chooses to acquire the land can secure the permission and at the same time a grantee can also secure permission for transfer. The provision does not permit does not contemplate the imposition of any conditions by the Government - 33 - WP No.

32202 of 2024 for granting the permission either for transfer or acquisition of a granted land. 47. In this view of the matter, the argument that the circulars had indicated a timeline within which a transfer should take place cannot be accepted. It may also be noticed here that permission is specific to a particular transaction and the order of granting permission should indicate conditions, if any. In the instant case, the order of the Government according permission on 31. 08. 2006 did not lay down any conditions with reference to a time limit for going ahead with the transfer. The order granting permission was only subject to three conditions and since there was no condition imposed that the transfer should be completed within a particular time limit, this argument of the learned Senior counsel cannot be accepted. - 34 - WP No. 32202 of 2024 48. In light of the above, and in my view, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is thus dismissed.

Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE GSR List No. : 1 Sl No. : 53

Source: High Court of Karnataka. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.