M.P. DEVARAJ Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition calling in question the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner who have given concurrent findings that the agricultural lands purchased by the petitioner herein under a sale deed dtd. 9/4/1997 is hit by the provisions of Sec. 4(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PTCL Act' for short).

(2.) The land in question was granted in favour of one Thimanna, the husband of respondent No. 3 (since deceased) and father of respondents No. 4 and 5 (since deceased). The legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 3 and 5 are brought on record. The land was granted during the year 1961-62. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the said Thimanna had admittedly come from Andhra Pradesh and settled at Tarikere and though he may have belonged to a community which was recognized as a Scheduled Caste in the State of Andhra Pradesh, but the community is not recognized as a Scheduled Caste in the Presidential notification of the State of Karnataka. Therefore, the basic contention is that when the said Thimanna, the original grantee did not belong to a Scheduled Caste, the provisions of PTCL Act, is not attracted.

(3.) To buttress his contention, the learned Counsel for petitioner has relied upon several decisions of this Court, including Narayan V. Shiroor Vs. The Tahsildar, Bhatkal Taluk, Uttara Kannada District [2017 (4) kccr 2982], an unreported decision in the case of Sri M.P. Devaraj Vs. Government of Karnataka and Others in W.P. No. 13527/1998, decided on 2/12/1998, to submit that the fact finding authority are bound to go into the question as to whether the original grantee belonged to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The learned Counsel would also place reliance on two decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Nityanand Sharma and Another Vs. State of Bihar and Others, AIR 1996 SC 2306 and Bir Singh Vs. Delhi Jal Board and Others, AIR 2018 SC 4077, to submit that no Court is empowered to declare equivalence/synonyms and they are devoid of power to include or exclude, substitute or declare synonyms to be of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or parts thereof or group of such caste or tribe. The learned Counsel submits that in a subsequent proceedings, the Assistant Commissioner has given a finding that Thimanna did not belong to a Scheduled Caste category.