Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri T. A. Darmalingam, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 17.08.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamagaluru District, which confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Tarikere Sub Division, rejecting his application for resumption and restoration of land under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (SC/ST (PTCL) Act). The land in question, four acres in Sy.No.202 of Dogglapura village, Tarikere Taluk, was granted to the petitioner's father, Aadiyappa, a Scheduled Caste, on 30.06.1957. Aadiyappa sold the land to one T. Sudhakar on 10.04.1974, but repurchased it on 20.06.1977. The petitioner claimed that the sale in 1974 violated the conditions of the grant, which prohibited transfer to non-Scheduled Castes. The Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner rejected the application, finding no evidence of such a condition. The High Court noted that the petitioner failed to produce the grant order or any document showing a condition prohibiting transfer. The court held that the burden of proof lies on the applicant to establish that the transfer was in contravention of the grant conditions. Since the petitioner did not discharge this burden, the concurrent findings of fact were not interfered with. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Land Law - Resumption of Granted Land - Burden of Proof - Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 - The petitioner sought resumption of land granted to his father, a Scheduled Caste, alleging that the sale in 1974 violated grant conditions. The court held that the burden is on the applicant to prove that the transfer was in contravention of the grant conditions. Mere assertion without evidence is insufficient. (Paras 1-4)
B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of Interference - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - The court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, as the petitioner failed to produce the grant order or any evidence showing a condition prohibiting transfer. The writ petition was dismissed. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to resumption and restoration of land under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, based on the alleged violation of grant conditions.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order dated 17.08.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner rejecting the petitioner's application for resumption of land is upheld.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on applicant to show violation of grant conditions
- Resumption of land under SC/ST (PTCL) Act requires evidence of transfer in contravention of grant terms
- Concurrent findings of fact not interfered with under Article 226/227
Case Details
2017 LawText (KAR) (09) 5
W.P.No.39102 OF 2017 (SC-ST)
Sri. Mohankumar D along with Sri. Maruthi G.B. Adv. for petitioner; Sri. Dildar Shiralli, HCGP for respondents 1 to 4
The State of Karnataka, The Deputy Commissioner, The Assistant Commissioner, The Tahashildar, Sri. Virupakhsappa, K.C. Indira
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the rejection of an application for resumption and restoration of land under the SC/ST (PTCL) Act.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 17.08.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner confirming the Assistant Commissioner's order rejecting his application for resumption of land.
Filing Reason
Petitioner claimed that the sale of land by his father in 1974 violated the conditions of the grant under the SC/ST (PTCL) Act, and sought resumption.
Previous Decisions
The Assistant Commissioner, Tarikere, rejected the application; the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamagaluru, confirmed that order on 17.08.2017.
Issues
Whether the petitioner proved that the transfer of land in 1974 was in contravention of the conditions of the grant under the SC/ST (PTCL) Act.
Whether the concurrent findings of fact by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner warrant interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the sale in 1974 was in violation of the grant conditions as the land was granted to a Scheduled Caste and could not be transferred to a non-Scheduled Caste.
Respondents contended that the petitioner failed to produce the grant order or any evidence showing a condition prohibiting transfer, and thus the application was rightly rejected.
Ratio Decidendi
Under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, the burden of proof lies on the applicant seeking resumption of land to establish that the transfer was in contravention of the conditions of the grant. Mere assertion without producing the grant order or other evidence is insufficient. Concurrent findings of fact by the authorities below, based on lack of evidence, are not interfered with under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Judgment Excerpts
This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 17.08.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamagaluru District, confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Tarikere Sub Division, thereby rejecting the application filed by the petitioner seeking resumption and restoration of the land in terms of the provisions contained under The Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978.
The burden is on the petitioner to establish that the transfer was in violation of the conditions of the grant. In the absence of the grant order or any other material to show that there was a condition prohibiting transfer, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the authorities below cannot be interfered with.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Tarikere, for resumption of land under the SC/ST (PTCL) Act, which was rejected. The petitioner appealed to the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamagaluru, who confirmed the rejection on 17.08.2017. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution before the High Court of Karnataka.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978:
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
