By: M.S.Yatnatti: Editor and Video Journalist Bangaluru : Bengaluru DC is under cloud .Once the land is granted as per rules it cannot be withdrawn on whims and fancies of vested interests and it cannot alienated to anybody or it cannot be made buffer zone of forest department or it cannot alienated to anybody else as it is violation of PTCL Act and it need to survey and restore land it to SC/ST Guarantees. . Special Deputy Commissioner Bangalore urban district cares two hoots to the order of KAT. The fact of the matter is that 15 SC/ST families were allotted land by Government as early as in 1979 and present Acts barring land allotments within 18 KM of BBMP jurisdiction does not apply to it .With one pretext or the other the matter is dragged for years despite the matter is twice settled by KAT in favor of allottees .The allottees are poor and vested interests are standing in the way in taking possession of the land which legally belong to them .Therefore it is duty of Deputy commissioner Special Deputy commissioner Assistant commissioner and the officers down the line to ensure that they physically put to possession of lands .Since the government and KAT issued directions no compliance was made by Deputy commissioner Special Deputy commissioner Assistant commissioner and the officers down the line. Special Deputy commissioner has not taken any actionon KAT order in 608/2005 and 798 to 811/2005 dated 17-08-2009 LND.CR(S) 69/97-98 which was remanded back to Special Deputy Commissioner Bangalore urban district for grant of land to ST/ST applicants and Saguvali chit holders In S.No 85 ofB.M Kaval Village Kengeri Hobli Bangalore South Taluka after fresh enquiry and demarcation of land by Special Deputy Commissioner Bangalore.Special Deputy commissioner has not taken any action for demarcating 119 acres of forest land In S.No 85 ofB.M Kaval Village Kengeri Hobli Bangalore South Taluka which was given to forest department as per order No G 4907/10/FT 154-4 dated 14-12-1935 which includes buffer zone on each side of land as no extra land can be claimed by forest department as buffer zone. (As S.No 85 ofB.M Kaval Village extent ismore than 243 acres).
15 SC/ST families were allotted land by Government as early as in 1979might now seek restoration of lands by invoking provisions of PTCL Act .In Krishnamurthy vs The Deputy Commissioner And Ors. on 14 June, 2002HKHC has issued order that "On a perusal of the aims and objects of the PTCL Act and especially the definition of "granted land" as per Section 3(1)(b), it is seen that to bring any granted land within the definition the condition precedent is that such land should have been granted to a person belonging to either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. It is to be remembered here itself that under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act and various other provisions like the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, Land Grant Rules, etc., time and again provisions are made to encourage cultivation and for grant of lands to the persons who do not own land or who belong to either depressed class or who are below the poverty line. In a loose sense, all such granted lands cannot be the land coming within the purview of Section 3(1)(b) as stated and as is defined, the land must have been granted only to a person who belongs to either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. If the grant is for any other reason and even if incidentally such grantee belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, in my view, the PTCL Act is not attracted. In a recent pronouncement of this Court in the case of Abdul Haq Shamshuddin Saheb v. Deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada District, Karwar and Ors., 2002(5) Kar. L.J. 109 considering similar question as to the grant under the Land Revenue Act to the Land Grant Rules to a person belonging to and only on that count vis-a-vis the grant or conferment of right under the Land Reforms Act, this Court has held that to invoke the provisions of the PTCL Act it must be shown that the land was granted to a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe only on that count and not otherwise. This is more so, since like the provisions of the Land Reforms Act any person belonging to either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or even higher class can claim grant of occupancy right and, if he shows compliance with the necessary conditions, he is entitled for such conferment of occupancy rights or grant of the land. At that stage, it is not necessary that he should belong to a particular caste or community. As such, reiterating the same principle in my view to bring a land within the definition of "granted land" as per Section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act as well as the applicability and invoking the provisions of the PTCL Act, it is mandatory and necessary to show that the land in question was granted to the petitioner or the claimant/grantee only on the ground that he belongs to depress class or community.
B.K. Muniraju vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 15 February, 2008 HKHC has said that "The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 shows that the non-alienation clause contained in the existing Land Grant Rules and the provisions for cancellation of grants where the land is alienated in contravention of the above said provision are found not sufficient to help the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes grantees whose ignorance and poverty have been exploited by persons belonging to the affluent and powerful sections to obtain sales or mortgages either for a nominal consideration or for no consideration at all and they have become the victims of circumstances. To fulfill the purposes of the grant, the land even if it has been alienated, should be restored to the original grantee or his heirs. It is clear that in order to provide for the prohibition of transfer of certain lands granted by Government to persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Karnataka, the above said Act was enacted. In order to implement the provisions of the Act, the Rules were framed. Among the provisions, we are concerned with Section 4 which prohibits transfer of "granted land". It makes it clear that notwithstanding anything in any law, agreement, contract on instrument, any transfer of granted land made either before or after the commencement of the Act, in contravention of the terms of the grant of such land or the law providing for such grant, or sub-section (2) shall be null and void and no right, title or interest in such land shall be conveyed or be deemed ever to have conveyed by such transfer. Sub-section (2) makes it clear that no person shall, after the commencement of the Act, transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land without the previous permission of the Government. As per sub-section (3), the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) also apply to the sale of any land in execution of a decree or order of a Civil Court or of any award or order of any other authority.
I have askedSpecial Deputy commissioner to provide me the information and reasons Under section 4(1) (d) of RTI Act for not demarcating the land In S.No 85 ofB.M Kaval Village Kengeri Hobli Bangalore South Taluka for 102 acres which was granted to 18 persons and they are in possession and enjoyments .I have askedSpecial Deputy commissioner to provide me theinformation and reasons Under section 4(1) (d) of RTI Act for not demarcating the land In S.No 85 ofB.M Kaval Village Kengeri Hobli Bangalore South Taluka for 43 acres 24 guntas -3 acres 3 guntas utilized for road= 40 acres which was granted to Thimmaiah and 19 otherpersons and they have Saguvali chits and their names appear in RTC they are in possession and enjoyments . KAT orders in page 19 suggest that at least 2 acres or 3 acres can be given possession instead of 4 acres and totally denying the possession as per grant. I have askedSpecial Deputy commissioner to provide methe information and reasons Under section 4(1) (d) of RTI Act for not demarcating 119 acres of forest land In S.No 85 ofB.M Kaval Village Kengeri Hobli Bangalore South Taluka ( out of 221.24 acres on record but actually measures more than 240.15 acres) which was given to forest department as per order No G 4907/10/FT 154-4 dated 14-12-9135 which includes buffer zone on each side of land as no extra land can be claimed by forest department as buffer zone.I have askedSpecial Deputy commissioner to provide methe information and reasons Under section 4(1) (d) of RTI Act for not demarcating the land afteraccurate survey with modern technology and satellite survey In S.No 85 ofB.M Kaval Village Kengeri Hobli Bangalore South Taluka demarcating the boundary lines for each grantee..This information and reasons need to be provided to me as per Guide on RTIto Information Act 2005 published by the Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions Department of Personnel & Training (available here :http://rti.gov.in/RTICorner/Guideonrti.pdf) on page 12 and Para 9, following is stated: Providing Reasons for Decisions: The public authorities take various administrative and quasi-judicial decisions which affect the interests of certain persons. It is mandatory for the concerned public authority to provide reasons for such decisions to the affected persons. It may be done by using appropriate mode of communication .Attention is also invited towards the thread 'affected person ' under rti act.In fact, it can be said that "Affected" refers back to an action. The"Affected Persons" are the ones who are affected by that action. The reasons need to be given to affected person and copy of that can be given to me under 2 f of RTI Act. The UDD is THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY under obligation to provide information "PUBLICLY” under section 4(1) (a) (b) (c) (d). The DCoffice is THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY under obligation to provide information "PUBLICLY” under section 4(1) (a) (b) (c) (d). (Relevant documents are enclosed with this RTI Application for your perusal.