1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 20 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2013 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL W.P.No. 43473/2012 (SCST) BETWEEN: NTI Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., No.51, 6 th Cross, 9 th Main Road, RMV Extension, Sadashivanagar, Bangalore 560080 By its Secretary R Prakash S/o. Late N.S. Ramaswamy Iyer Aged about 58 years. PETITIONER (By Sri R.V.Jayaprakash, Adv.) AND: 1. Karnataka State Commission for Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes By its President, No.14/3, II Floor, CFC Building, Nrupathunga Road, Bangalore 560 001. 2. Vishwa Manva Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes Welfare Association, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Residency, No.58, Shanthivana, II Cross Road, Post: Sahakaranagara, Bangalore 560 092. By its President.
2 3. V. Rajanna S/o. Late Venkatappa, Aged about 40 years, President, Vishwa Manava Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes Welfare Association Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Residency, No.58, Shanthivana, II Cross Road, Post: Sahakaranagara, Bangalore 560 092. 4. The Deputy Commissioner Bangalore Urban District, City Civil Court Complex, Behind Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore 560 009. RESPONDENTS (By Sri K.N. Puttegowda, Adv. for Sri C. Rajanna, Adv. and Sri S.J.Kumar, Adv. for R2 & R3 Sri M.G.Anjana Murthy, HCGP for R4) ************ This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash Annexure-P, the direction dated 09.02.2012 issued by the 1 st respondent to the 4 th respondent This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following: ORDER 1. In this writ petition, petitioner-society is calling in question the communication dated 09.02.2012 addressed by respondent No.1 Karnataka State Commission for Schedule
3 Castes and Schedule Tribes (for short, the Commission), to the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District. 2. By the said communication, the President of the Commission has, while referring to the Circular dated 16.06.1997 issued by the State Government as per the Government Letter bearing No.105/Land Acquisition/97, directing that the lands owned by persons belonging to Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe shall not be acquired for public enterprises unless it was absolutely necessary, instructed the Deputy Commissioner to enter the names of Venkatappa and Hanumanthappa in the khatha of Sy. No.14/3B measuring 2 acres. It is also further stated in the said communication that the matter may be examined in detail to secure justice to the affected persons and to report the action taken to the Commission. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner-society that Sy. No.14/3B to an extent of 1 acre 29 guntas along with another extent of 1 gunta of phut kharab land has been acquired by the State Government for the purpose of the petitioner-society as per the preliminary notification issued
4 on 03.01.1985 published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 04.01.1985 vide Annexure-A and a final declaration was issued under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 22.09.1986 published in the gazette on 25.09.1986 vide Annexure-B. According to the petitioner, possession of the land had been taken by issuing notification under Section 16(2) and the petitioner-society has formed a layout of sites in the said land. His contention is that there was absolutely no justification for respondent No.3 who is the son of Venkatappa to approach the Commission making any grievance in that regard. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Jayaprakash contends that respondent No.1 does not have any jurisdiction to initiate any proceedings against the Society in respect of the acquired land. He is highly critical of the action taken by respondent No.1 in issuing the impugned communication Annexure-P. Drawing the attention of the Court to the Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002, particularly the provisions contained under Section 8 which deal with the
5 functions and powers of the Commission, learned Counsel submits that the power exercised by the Commission in issuing Annexure-O endorsement and Annexure-P communication is outside the scope and jurisdiction of its powers. 5. Mr. Putte Gowda, learned Counsel appearing for contesting respondent No.3 supports the impugned communication contending inter alia that the Commission has not passed any order adverse to the interest of the petitioner, but it has only instructed the Deputy Commissioner to take action in accordance with law to secure justice to the under-privileged class of persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe having regard to the Circular issued by the State Government. It is his submission that the land in question has not been acquired by the Petitioner-Society, but the same was acquired for Railwaymen House Building Co-operative Society during the year 1983, but later on the acquisition proceedings were not concluded and land was de-notified under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. In this regard,
6 he has produced Annexure-R15 along with the statement of objections. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for both parties, I find it totally unnecessary to examine the question whether the land in question has been indeed acquired in favour of the petitioner-society or it is continued to be absolutely owned and possessed by respondent No.3. In fact, the litigation with regard to the entries to be effected in the revenue records in respect of Sy. No.14/3B is pending before the Assistant Commissioner before whom the petitioner- Society has challenged the order passed by the Tahsildar by filing an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. In the light of this, the matter has to be examined by the Assistant Commissioner with regard to the khatha to be entered in the name of the respective parties. Respondent No.1 cannot interfere in a matter like this, to record any finding or to give any direction to the authorities to enter the khatha in the name of any third person. Since the question involved is a disputed question of fact and as both parties are asserting their right over the property and as
7 the matter is seized by the revenue authorities, the parties have to work out their remedy before the revenue authorities with regard to the entries in the khatha. 7. All that can be said is that the impugned communication Annexure-P cannot be given effect to, as respondent No.1 cannot assume jurisdiction to issue such a direction to the revenue authorities to enter the name of any third person in the khatha. 8. Hence, this writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned communication at Annexure-P is quashed. It is made clear that no opinion is expressed on the merits of the matter and both parties are at liberty to urge their respective contentions before the revenue authorities on the merits of the matter. KK Sd/- JUDGE