Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Krishnappa, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash an order dated 10.11.2011 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner (respondent No.4) under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The impugned order directed the authorities to remove the entries made in the name of the petitioner in respect of Sy.No.74/313 measuring 2 acres of Bandikodigehalli, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. The petitioner contended that this was a classic case of victimization by the Government Authorities, as the Assistant Commissioner under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 had taken a stand that the land was not granted to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe person, while the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 took a contrary stand and ordered removal of entries. The court, after hearing the parties, found that the impugned order was unsustainable and quashed it, directing the authorities to restore the entries in the name of the petitioner. The court observed that the dual stand taken by the authorities amounted to victimization of the petitioner.
Headnote
A) Land Revenue - Section 136(3) Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Victimization by Authorities - The petitioner was victimized by the dual stand of the Assistant Commissioner under the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act, 1978 and the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The court held that the impugned order was unsustainable and quashed it, directing restoration of entries in the petitioner's name. (Paras 1-3) B) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes - Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act, 1978 - Dual Stand - The Assistant Commissioner had earlier held that the land was not granted to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe person, but the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the KLR Act directed removal of entries. The court found this contradictory and set aside the order. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, directing removal of entries in the name of the petitioner in respect of the land in question, is sustainable in law, given the dual stand taken by the Government Authorities under the Karnataka SC/ST Act and the Land Revenue Act.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 10.11.2011 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 is quashed. The authorities are directed to restore the entries in the name of the petitioner in respect of Sy.No.74/313.
Law Points
- Section 136(3) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act
- 1964
- Karnataka Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act
- 1978
- Victimization by Government Authorities
- Dual Stand by Authorities
- Writ of Certiorari
