Karnataka High Court
Sri Arun N Shetty vs State Of Karnataka on 21 September, 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT PETITION NO.9560 OF 2014 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN
SRI.ARUN N SHETTY,
AGED 42 YEARS,
S/O J.NARASIMHA SHETTY,
CHICKATHEKAHALLI VILLAGE,
BASETTAHALLI HOBLI,
SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK - 562 105.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VENKATESH R BHAGAT, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT,
CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562 105.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
CHIKKABALLAPUR SUB - DIVISION,
CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562 105.
2
4. SRI.NAGARAJA,
MAJOR,
S/O NARAYANAPPA,
R/AT DODDATHEKAHALLI,
BASETTAHALLI HOBLI,
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK - 561 105.
5. SRI.B.CHOKKAPPA,
MAJOR,
S/O LATE GORLA DODDA BYRAPPA,
R/AT DODDATHEKAHALLI,
BASETTAHALLI HOBLI,
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK - 561 105.
6. SRI.SINGAPPA,
MAJOR,
S/O YETTUGALA SINGAPPA,
7. SRI.BHOOMAPPA,
MAJOR,
S/O YETTUGALAPPA,
RESPONDENTS 6 AND 7 ARE
R/AT CHICKADASENAHALLI,
KUNDLAGURKI HOBLI,
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK - 561 105.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI.NAYEEM PASHA S., ADV. FOR R4;
R5, R6 AND R7 ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN RESPECT OF ORDERS
DATED 06.01.2014 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT,
CHICKBALLAPUR VIDE ANNEXURE - A AND THE ORDER
DATED 06.01.2014 AND ETC.,
3
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH
VIDEO CONFERENCE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel for respondent No.4
2. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.04.2011 passed by the third respondent bearing No.PTCL(C) 111/2007-08 (Annexure-D) and the order dated 06.01.2014 passed by the second respondent bearing No.RA/SCST/10/2012-13 (Annexure-A), the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
3. The case of the petitioner is that land measuring 04 acres in Sy.No.68/4, new survey No.101, situated at Chickathekahalli, Basettahalli Hobli, Sidlaghatta Taluk, was granted in favour of one Obalappa, who belonged to a scheduled caste, in the 4 year 29.06.1962. The said Obalappa alienated the said land on 21.08.1962. The present petitioner purchased the said land on 11.01.2007. After the purchase of the property by the petitioner, the fourth respondent, who is said to be grand son of the original grantee, filed a petition under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'the PTCL Act') before the third respondent. Respondent No.3 allowed the said application by order dated 18.04.2011 as per Annexure-D to the writ petition, wherein the sale deeds were cancelled and land was ordered to be resumed by the Government.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the second respondent, who dismissed the same by confirming the order dated 18.04.2011 (Annexure-D) passed by the third respondent vide order dated 06.01.2014 (Annexure-A) 5 to the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
5. It is noticed that land was granted in favour of the original grantee in the year 1962 and alienation took place in the same year i.e., 1962. The PTCL Act came into force in the year 1979 and the application for restoration was filed in the year 2007. There is an inordinate delay in filing the application by the fourth respondent after the PTCL Act came into force.
6. The petitioner, in support of his contention relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in 2018 (1) Kar. L.R. 5 (SC), wherein at paragraph 8 it is held as under:
"8. However, the question that arises is with regard to terms of Section 5 of the Act which enables any interested person to make an application for having the transfer annulled as void under Section 4 of the Act.6
This Section does not prescribe any period within which such an application can be made. Neither does it prescribe the period within which suo motu action may be taken. This Court in the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav & Ors. Vs. Hari Kishore Yadav (D) Thr.Lrs. & Ors. 2017(6) SCALE 459 and also in the case of Ningappa vs. Dy. Commissioner & Ors. (C.A.No.3131 of 2007, decided on 14.07.2011) reiterated a settled position in law that whether Statute provided for a period of limitation, provisions of the Statute must be invoked within a reasonable time. It is held that action whether on an application of the parties, or suo motu, must be taken within a reasonable time. That action arose under the provisions of a similar Act which provided for restoration of certain lands to farmers which were sold for arrears of rent or from which they were ejected for arrears of land from 1st January, 1939 to 31st December, 1950. This relief was granted to the farmers due to flood in the Kosi River which make agricultural operations impossible. An application for restoration was made after 24 years and was allowed. It is in that background that this Court upheld that it was unreasonable to do so. We have no hesitation in upholding that the present application for restoration of land made by respondent-Rajappa was made after an unreasonably long period and was liable to be dismissed on that ground. Accordingly, the judgments of the Karnataka High Court, namely, R.Rudrappa Vs.Deputy Commissioner, 2000 (1) Karnataka Law Journal, 523, Maddurappa Vs.State of Karnataka, 2006 (4) Karnataka Law Journal; 303 and G.Maregouda Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, 7 Chitradurga District, Chitradurga and Ors, 2000(2) Kr.L.J.Sh.N.4B holding that there is no limitation provided by Section 5 of the Act and, therefore, an application can be made at any time, are overruled. Order accordingly."
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VIVEK M. HINDUJA AND OTHERS VS. M. ASHWATHA AND OTHERS reported in 2018 (1) KAR. L.R 176 (SC) in paragraph 10 has held as under:
"10. We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid observations. It is, however, necessary to add that where limitation is not prescribed, the party ought to approach the competent Court or authority within reasonable time, beyond which no relief can be granted. As decided earlier, this principle would apply even to suo motu actions."
8. Though the statute does not specify the limitation within which the application for restoration has to be filed, as per the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court aforementioned, the same has to be made within a reasonable time.
8
9. In the instant case, there is inordinate delay of 28 years in making the application after the PTCL Act came into force. The same cannot be considered reasonable.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders at Annexures-D and A are liable to be quashed.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 18.04.2011 passed by the third respondent bearing No.PTCL(C) 111/2007-08 and the order dated 06.01.2014 passed by the second respondent bearing No.RA/SCST/10/2012-13 are hereby set aside.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE TL