Manjegowda Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- karnataka rent act, 1999 (34 of 2001) section 2(3)(g): [d.v. shylendra kumar, j] reasonable classification - protection to tenants held, in so far as making a distinction between the class of tenants in residential premises and tenants in non-residential premises used for commercial purpose is concerned, there cannot be any two opinions that they constitute two different and distinct groups, who cannot be treated alike and, therefore, the provision not treating them alike cannot be complained as one bringing about a discrimination by itself. while tenants in non-residential premises used for commercial purpose are also given protection under the act, that protection is confined to such tenants who are in occupation of non-residential premises up to a plinth area of 14 sq. mtrs. used for commercial purpose. such a benefit is deprived to the tenants in occupation of a commercial premises, the moment the plinth area of the premises crosses 14sq.mts., though the rent may be still within rs. 3,500/- per month, in the sense, even within the class of tenants who pay a monthly rent of less than rs.3,500/- an artificial classification is brought about between the tenants in occupation of a residential premises and tenants in occupation of the commercial premises. if the persons who were excluded from the group have a distinct feature, and such classification has a nexus to the object of the enactment, i.e., object of the legislation, the classification is said to be valid and not a violative of article 14 of the constitution of india as it will be a reasonable classification and having a nexus to the object. it is now well settled that as to what degree of protection is needed for the class of tenants who are in occupation of residential premises and what decree of protection is needed for the tenants in occupation of non-residential premises used for commercial purpose, is also within the wisdom and domain of the legislature. courts cannot sit in judgment over such standards or norms, unless a provision palpably on the face of it adopts such irrelevant norms and totally different yard sticks in respect of the different groups, which are classified. the mere fact that there being some variance it does not constitute an act of discrimination on the part of the legislature in making a particular provision of law. provisions particularly section 2(3)(g) of the act cannot be held to be a provision discriminatory per se between a class of tenants in residential premises and tenants in non-residential premises used for commercial purpose. karnataka rent act, 1999 (34 of 2001) section 70(2)(c): [d.v. shylendra kumar,j] repeal and savings - tenant in occupation of commercial premises paying monthly rent of less then rs. 3,500/-forced out of protection simply because plinth area of structure is more than 14 sq. mtrs. - revision petition filed by tenant getting abated on enforcement of 2001 act whereas revision petition filed by other tenants survived in view of section 70 of said act held, provisions of section 70 of said act thereby cannot be challenged as discriminatory. reason being section 2(3)(g) being relevant provision which by itself does not bring about any classification, leave alone a discrimination. section 70(2)(c) being consequential, cannot be found fault with as being violative of article 14 of constitution of india as discriminatory in nature. - further appeal to the deputy commissioner having failed, the present writ petition by the son of the purchaser. 4. the arguments conveniently overlooks the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 4 of the act, as the petitioner failed to obtain a permission, as envisaged in this provision and the consequences that follow under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the act.orderd.v. shylendra kumar, j.1. writ petition by the legal heir of a person who had purchased a land that; had been originally granted in favour of a person belonging to scheduled caste community in terms of a grant order dated 4-6-1960.2. such land been purchased by the father of the writ petitioner in terms of sale deeds dated 5-3-1981 and 17-6-1988. in respect of the said transactions the assistant commissioner, having been moved by the son of the grantee, invoking the provisions of the karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) act, 1978 (for short, 'the act'), issued notice to the petitioner herein, who was in possession of the land, held enquiry and invalidated the sale transactions, for the reasons that the transfer of the land was after the act came into force without prior permission of the government as contemplated under sub-section (2) of section 4 of the act. further appeal to the deputy commissioner having failed, the present writ petition by the son of the purchaser.3. submission of sri rudra gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that the sale has taken place after the expiry of the period upto which the grantee could not have sold the land; that in the year 1981 when the property was transferred no condition was operating on the grantee; that the supreme court while examining the provisions of the act has categorically ruled that the provisions of the act are not attracted to a situation where the transfer takes place after the period upto which the grantee was under a restraint from effecting the transfer; that if such of the observation of the supreme court as contained in para 17 read with para 24 of the decision in manchegowda v. state of karnataka : [1984]3scr502 , is to be taken note of, invalidating the transfer by the original authority and affirmed in appeal by the deputy commissioner are to be held as not valid in law and to be set aside and the application filed by the son of the grantee to be rejected.4. the arguments conveniently overlooks the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 4 of the act, as the petitioner failed to obtain a permission, as envisaged in this provision and the consequences that follow under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the act.5. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the act operates in two parts for invalidating a transfer of a granted land. in respect of the transfer before the act came into force it is for the violation of the conditions subject to which the grant was made and in respect of transfers effected after the act came into force it is for not obtaining the permission of the government as contemplated under sub-section (2) of section 4 of the act. observation contained in the paragraphs referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner is only in respect of a situation where the transfer was before the act came into force.6. the apex court having upheld the act, including sub-section (2) of section 4 of the act and the consequences of non-obtaining a permission as contemplated in sub-section (2) of section 4 of the act being to render the transaction is invalid, it is voided in terms of sub-section (2) of section 4 of the act and admittedly as the transfer in this case was without prior permission of the government, the orders passed by the authorities are just and proper and in consonance with the statutory provisions. no occasion for this court to interfere in the matter.7. writ petition is dismissed.

Judgment:
ORDER

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.

1. Writ petition by the legal heir of a person who had purchased a land that; had been originally granted in favour of a person belonging to Scheduled Caste Community in terms of a grant order dated 4-6-1960.

2. Such land been purchased by the father of the writ petitioner in terms of sale deeds dated 5-3-1981 and 17-6-1988. In respect of the said transactions the Assistant Commissioner, having been moved by the son of the grantee, invoking the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the Act'), issued notice to the petitioner herein, who was in possession of the land, held enquiry and invalidated the sale transactions, for the reasons that the transfer of the land was after the Act came into force without prior permission of the Government as contemplated under Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act. Further appeal to the Deputy Commissioner having failed, the present writ petition by the son of the purchaser.

3. Submission of Sri Rudra Gowda, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that the sale has taken place after the expiry of the period upto which the grantee could not have sold the land; that in the year 1981 when the property was transferred no condition was operating on the grantee; that the Supreme Court while examining the provisions of the Act has categorically ruled that the provisions of the Act are not attracted to a situation where the transfer takes place after the period upto which the grantee was under a restraint from effecting the transfer; that if such of the observation of the Supreme Court as contained in para 17 read with para 24 of the decision in Manchegowda v. State of Karnataka : [1984]3SCR502 , is to be taken note of, invalidating the transfer by the original authority and affirmed in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner are to be held as not valid in law and to be set aside and the application filed by the son of the grantee to be rejected.

4. The arguments conveniently overlooks the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, as the petitioner failed to obtain a permission, as envisaged in this provision and the consequences that follow under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act.

5. The provision of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act operates in two parts for invalidating a transfer of a granted land. In respect of the transfer before the Act came into force it is for the violation of the conditions subject to which the grant was made and in respect of transfers effected after the Act came into force it is for not obtaining the permission of the Government as contemplated under Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act. Observation contained in the paragraphs referred to by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is only in respect of a situation where the transfer was before the Act came into force.

6. The Apex Court having upheld the Act, including Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act and the consequences of non-obtaining a permission as contemplated in Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act being to render the transaction is invalid, it is voided in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act and admittedly as the transfer in this case was without prior permission of the Government, the orders passed by the authorities are just and proper and in consonance with the statutory provisions. No occasion for this Court to interfere in the matter.

7. Writ petition is dismissed.