Karnataka High Court slaps Rs 25,000 fine for suppressing facts in land dispute case

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 upon the descendants of an original grantee for suppression of facts in the appeal proceedings seeking restoration of 1 acre land at Singena Agrahara, Anekal taluk.

A division bench comprising Justices V Kameshwar Rao and TM Nadaf also said the state government should implement proper mechanism for taking actions against the erring officials, who fails to take immediate action with which they are duty bound under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) (PTCL) Act, by making suitable provisions in the Act and the Rules.

In the case at hand, the land was granted to Chikkavenkatamma in January 1982 and though the land was sold in 1996, the permission as contemplated under section-4 of PTCL Act was obtained in 1998. In 2004, the land was again sold through another registered sale deed.

In 2005, the original grantee initiated proceedings under the PTCL Act for restoration of the land. While the application was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner, in 2009, the Deputy Commissioner ordered restoration of the land, forcing both the subsequent purchasers to approach the high court.

The single bench held that though the document was presented for registration on November 16, 1996, the sub-registrar ultimately registered the document on June 15, 1998 after a valid permission from the government was obtained as contemplated under section – 4(2) of PTCL Act. This order by the single bench was challenged by the descendants of the original grantee.

The division bench noted that in the case at hand, the sub-registrar had exercised his power under Section-6 of PTCL Act and registered after being satisfied that there was a previous permission to convey the land.

“We have noticed from the record that the appellants (Narayanamma and others) along with other relatives entered into a registered agreement of sale with one C Venkatesh.

"On the query of this court, counsel for the appellants admits that the appellants did enter into a registered agreement of sale with C Venkatesh. Despite the same, the appellants have not disclosed the said fact in the writ appeal either in the facts of the case or in the grounds,” the bench said, while directing the fine amount to be deposited to the account of the Karnataka State Advocates Welfare Fund, Bengaluru.

The bench further noted that though the PTCL Act was enacted way back in the year 1978 the officials enjoined with the powers of the Act are very slow to respond, despite suo-motu powers are given to take immediate actions.

“The lack of willingness on the part of the authorities to Initiate proceedings at the earliest, as the lands granted being the Government land and waiting for the grantees or the descendants to approach, shows the apathy with which the provisions are dealt with.

"The State Government should adopt and implement proper mechanism for taking actions against the erring officials, who fail to take immediate action with which they are duty bound under the provisions of the PTCL Act, by making suitable provisions in the Act and the Rules there under,” the bench said.