Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Erappa, sold land bearing Sy.No.5/1 measuring 3 acres situated at Alla Nagar, Koppal Taluk and District, to respondent No.3, Suresh, vide registered sale deed dated 09.03.2005. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner (respondent No.1) passed an order dated 22.08.2015 cancelling the mutation entry on the ground that the land originally belonged to a person belonging to Scheduled Tribe and the sale was made without prior permission of the competent authority under Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The Deputy Commissioner (respondent No.2) confirmed this order on 12.09.2019. Respondent No.3 challenged these orders before the High Court in W.P No.114449/2019, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 23.11.2022, quashing the orders and restoring the mutation entry. The appellant filed an intra-court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. The Division Bench examined the facts and found that the land was granted to a Scheduled Tribe person and the sale deed was executed without permission, making the transfer void ab initio under Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. The mutation entry based on such void sale deed cannot be sustained. The Division Bench also rejected the appellant's contention that the writ petition was not maintainable due to availability of alternative remedy, holding that the Single Judge had rightly exercised jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the order of the Single Judge and restoring the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner.
Headnote
A) Land Law - Mutation Entry - Void Sale Deed - Section 61 Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - The respondent No.3 purchased land from the appellant vide registered sale deed dated 09.03.2005. The Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner passed orders cancelling the mutation entry on the ground that the land belonged to a Scheduled Tribe and the sale was without permission under Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The learned Single Judge quashed those orders and restored the mutation entry. The Division Bench held that the sale deed was void ab initio for want of permission, and the mutation entry based on such void sale deed cannot be sustained. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the order of the Single Judge. (Paras 1-10)
B) Land Law - Prohibition of Transfer - Section 4 Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 - The land in question was granted to a person belonging to Scheduled Tribe, and the sale deed was executed without prior permission of the competent authority. The Division Bench held that such transfer is void under Section 4 of the Act, and the mutation entry based on such void transfer is liable to be cancelled. (Paras 5-8)
C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Article 226 Constitution of India - The appellant contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as the respondent No.3 had an alternative remedy of appeal under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The Division Bench held that the availability of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction, and the Single Judge had rightly entertained the writ petition. (Para 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in quashing the mutation entry based on a sale deed which was void ab initio for want of permission under Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and whether the appeal is maintainable in view of availability of alternative remedy.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The order dated 23.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P No.114449/2019 is set aside. The orders dated 22.08.2015 and 12.09.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner respectively are restored.
Law Points
- Void sale deed
- Mutation entry
- Section 61 Karnataka Land Revenue Act
- 1964
- Section 4 Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act
- 1978
- Writ of certiorari
- Intra-court appeal
- Res judicata
- Alternative remedy
Case Details
2023 LawText (KAR) (06) 15
Writ Appeal No. 100265 of 2023
S G Pandit, Vijaykumar A. Patil
Sri. Mrutynjay S. Hallikeri (for appellant), Sri. Anand R. Kolli (for R3), Sri. V. S. Kalasurmath (for R1 & R2)
Assistant Commissioner, Koppal; Deputy Commissioner, Koppal; Suresh S/o. Sevaram Lakhotia
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Intra-court appeal against order of learned Single Judge allowing writ petition and quashing orders of Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner cancelling mutation entry.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought setting aside of the order dated 23.11.2022 in W.P No.114449/2019 passed by the learned Single Judge.
Filing Reason
Appellant challenged the Single Judge's order which restored mutation entry based on a sale deed that was allegedly void for want of permission under Section 61 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
Previous Decisions
Assistant Commissioner passed order dated 22.08.2015 cancelling mutation entry; Deputy Commissioner confirmed it on 12.09.2019; learned Single Judge quashed these orders on 23.11.2022.
Issues
Whether the sale deed dated 09.03.2005 is void ab initio for want of permission under Section 61 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964?
Whether the mutation entry based on such void sale deed can be sustained?
Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of availability of alternative remedy?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the sale deed was valid and the mutation entry was rightly restored by the Single Judge.
Respondent No.3 contended that the sale deed was executed with all formalities and the mutation entry was correctly entered.
Respondents No.1 and 2 supported the orders cancelling mutation entry on ground of lack of permission.
Ratio Decidendi
A sale deed executed without prior permission of the competent authority under Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, in respect of land belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, is void ab initio. A mutation entry based on such void sale deed cannot be sustained and is liable to be cancelled. The availability of alternative remedy does not bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Judgment Excerpts
This intra-court appeal is filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.11.2022 passed in W.P No.114449/2019 (KLR-RES) wherein the writ petition filed by the respondent No.3 was allowed.
The land bearing Sy.No.5/1 measuring 3 acres situated at Alla Nagar, Koppal Taluk and District was purchased by the respondent No.3 from the appellant vide registered sale deed 09.03.2005.
The Assistant Commissioner passed an order dated 22.08.2015 cancelling the mutation entry on the ground that the land originally belonged to a person belonging to Scheduled Tribe and the sale was made without prior permission of the competent authority under Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
The Deputy Commissioner confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner on 12.09.2019.
The learned Single Judge quashed the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner and restored the mutation entry.
We are of the considered view that the sale deed executed without prior permission of the competent authority is void ab initio and the mutation entry based on such void sale deed cannot be sustained.
The appeal is allowed. The order dated 23.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P No.114449/2019 is set aside.
Procedural History
Respondent No.3 filed W.P No.114449/2019 before the High Court of Karnataka challenging orders dated 22.08.2015 and 12.09.2019 passed by Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner respectively. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 23.11.2022. The appellant filed Writ Appeal No.100265/2023 under Section 4 of Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 before the Division Bench, which heard the matter and reserved judgment on 15.06.2023, and pronounced judgment on 23.06.2023.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka High Court Act, 1961: Section 4
- Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964: Section 61
- Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978: Section 4
- Constitution of India: Article 226
