Karnataka SC/ST Commission has NO powers to deal with matters under Karnataka SC/ST (Prohibition of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. Order of resumption of land passed by the Commission quashed. Karnataka High Court.

Ganganna vs The State of Karnataka & others. Writ Petition 46279/2013 decided on 9 November 2020.

Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/348937/1/WP46279-13-09-10-2020.pdf

Relevant paragraphs: … Facts. The Assistant Commissioner again initiated proceedings under the Karnataka SC/ST (Prohibition of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 and passed an order holding that Act was not applicable as both the petitioner and the fourth respondent were grantees of land which they are respectively holding and there was no violation of the provisions of the said Act. The fourth respondent did not choose to challenge the same before the Assistant Commissioner, but approached the  Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Commission for restoration of land in his favour without making the petitioner a party to the proceedings. The Commission ordered resumption of land in favour of the fourth respondent. 

14. Against the order of the Assistant Commissioner, appeal is maintainable under Section 5A of the 1978 Act. Section 11 gives overriding effect to 1978 Act. Hence, no other quasi-judicial forum is empowered to entertain an appeal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner passed in terms of the said Act.

16 &17. Commission is created under the Karnataka State Commission for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002. The commission is enjoined with functions to investigate and examine the working of various safeguards provided under Constitution of India or any other law intended for the welfare and protection of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and to enquire into specific complaints with respect to deprivation of their rights and safeguards under the Constitution.

18. The provisions of the Act do not clothe the Commission with such powers to entertain the petition that is filed by a grantee seeking restoration of land and investigate into the matter.

19. Commission has jurisdiction to entertain petitions seeking restoration of land. Therefore, the very act of Commission entertaining the petition filed by the fourth respondent, assuming jurisdiction to itself as an appellate authority over the order of the Assistant Commissioner is blatantly contrary to the provisions of the said Act, without jurisdiction and is non est in the eye of law.

Writ Petition allowed. Order of the Commission quashed.

Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal.