Karnataka High Court
Ningappa S/O Bheerappa Purad vs Deputy Commissioner, Haveri District on 26 July, 2023
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7796
WP No. 101257 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.P.No.101257/2016 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
NINGAPPA S/O BHEERAPPA PURAD,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/O: NEGALUR, HAVERI TALUK,
DISTRICT: HAVERI-58110.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.H.MITTALKOD, ADV.)
AND:
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
HAVERI DISTRICT,
DISTRICT: HAVERI-58110.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
Digitally HAVERI SUB DIVISION,
signed by
VISHAL DISTRICT: HAVERI-58110.
VISHAL NINGAPPA
NINGAPPA PATTIHAL
PATTIHAL Date:
2023.07.27 3. TAHSILDAR,
10:48:50
+0530 HAVERI TALUK,
DISTRICT: HAVERI-58110.
4. SUB REGISTRAR,
HAVERI TALUK,
DISTRICT: HAVERI-58110.
5. GURUKUMARASWAMY
S/O GURUSWAMY GADDAGI MATH,
AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O: NEGALUR,
HAVERI TALUK, DISTRICT: HAVERI-58110.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7796
WP No. 101257 of 2016
6. PARAMESHWARAPPA S/O KARABASAPPA SANADI,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O: NEGALUR,
HAVERI TALUK, DISTRICT: HAVERI-58110.
7. NAGARAJA S/O KARABASAPPA SANADI,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O: NEGALUR,
HAVERI TALUK, DISTRICT: HAVERI-58110.
8. SMT. PUTTAVVA W/O KARABASAPPA SANADI,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O: NEGALUR,
HAVERI TALUK, DISTRICT: HAVERI-58110.
9. ARUN S/O KARABASAPPA SANADI,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O: NEGALUR,
HAVERI TALUK, DISTRICT: HAVERI-58110.
10. MANJUNATHA S/O KARABASAPPA SANADI,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O: NEGALUR,
HAVERI TALUK, DISTRICT: HAVERI-58110.
11. THE KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSIONER FOR
THE SCHEDULED CAST AND SCHEDULED TRIBE,
REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560009.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1-R4;
SMT. V VIDYA IYER, ADVOCATE FOR R6 & R7;
SRI PRASHANT MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE FOR R8-R10;
R5 & R11 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING ANNEXURE-L THE
ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED:25.11.2015 IN
NO. KRA:P.T.C.L:AP:10:2014-15 AND ANNEXURE-N THE
ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IN PTCL R.A.5/15-16
DATED:07.01.2016.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7796
WP No. 101257 of 2016
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court invoking the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following reliefs:
a) Issue writ of certiorari quashing Annexure-
L the order passed by respondent no.2 dated 25.11.2015 in No.KYA.PTCL.AP.10.2014-15 and Annexure-N the order passed by respondent no.1 in PTCL.RA.5/15-16 dated 07.01.2016 in the interest of justice and equity.
b) Issue any other writ or order as deems fit on the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. Facts leading to filing of this petition as revealed from the records narrated briefly are, the land bearing Sy. No.520/2 measuring 10 acres 26 guntas situated at Negalur village of Haveri Taluk, was granted to one Sanganabasappa S/o Ujjappa Sanadi on 14.04.1964. The original grantee is stated to have died on 05.01.1970 leaving behind his legal heir Karibasappa who is the father of respondent nos.6, 7, 9 & 10 and the husband of respondent no.8. The sons of Karibasappa viz., -4- NC: 2023:KHC-D:7796 WP No. 101257 of 2016 respondent nos.6, 7, 9 & 10 had executed a registered sale deed dated 12.04.1978 in respect of 4 acres 22 guntas in the land bearing Sy. No.520/2 out of 10 acres 26 guntas, in favour of respondent no.5 for a valid sale consideration. Subsequently, respondent no.5 had sold the aforesaid land measuring 4 acres 22 guntas in favour of the petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 17.04.1997.
4. Respondent nos.6 to 10 claiming to be the legal heirs of the original grantee have subsequently in the year 2015 filed the application for resumption of land under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the Act'). The Assistant Commissioner had entertained the said application and vide order dated 25.11.2015 at Annexure-L having held that the sale of the land in question measuring 4 acres 22 guntas was in violation of Section 4 of the Act, had directed resumption of the said land in favour of the legal heirs of the original grantee. The said order was unsuccessfully questioned by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, who has dismissed his appeal by order dated 07.01.2016 at -5- NC: 2023:KHC-D:7796 WP No. 101257 of 2016 Annexure-N. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the grounds urged in the petition and submits that the application under Section 5 of the Act has been filed by the legal representatives of the original grantee after a period of 36 years from the date of the Act coming into force which is beyond the reasonable period. He submits that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER - (2020) 14 SCC 232 and in the case of VIVEK M.HINDUJA VS. M.ASWATHA - (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC, respondent nos.1 & 2 were not justified in passing the impugned orders.
6. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting private respondents submits that there was a permanent prohibition for alienating the granted land. They submit that the grant was to a depressed class, and therefore, the delay in filing the application under Section 5 of the Act should not come in their way for the relief for which they are otherwise -6- NC: 2023:KHC-D:7796 WP No. 101257 of 2016 entitled under the provisions of the Act. They submit that when the Act does not provide for any such period of limitation for invoking Section 5 of the Act, it cannot be said that the application has been filed belatedly.
7. The undisputed facts of the case are, the grant was made in favour of the original grantee - Sanganabasappa on 14.04.1964. The legal representatives of the original grantee have executed sale deed in respect of 4 acres 22 guntas of land out of the granted land in favour of respondent no.5 herein on 12.04.1978. Thereafter, on 17.04.1997, respondent no.5 has executed the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid 4 acres 22 guntas of land.
8. The Act has come into force with effect from 01.01.1979. The application under Section 5 of the Act is filed in the year 2015 which is after a period of more than 36 years from the date of the Act coming into force. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi's case and Vivek M.Hinduja's case supra has held that any action under Section 5 of the Act of 1978 is required to be taken within a reasonable period and if not, the authorities are required to reject such applications. -7-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7796 WP No. 101257 of 2016
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NINGAPPA VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & OTHERS - (2020)14 SCC 232, had declined to entertain the application which was submitted after 9 years seeking restoration of land under Section 5 of the Act.
10. The Division Bench of this Court in WA No.300/2021 after having referred to the aforesaid three judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held that the application filed under Section 5 of the Act after a period of 11 years is definitely required to be considered as an application filed beyond reasonable period.
11. In the case of ERAPPA S/O NARAYANAPPA VS.ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER in W.A.No.100265/2023 disposed of on 23.06.2023, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the application filed under Section 5 of the Act which was after a delay of 7 years, was beyond reasonable period.
12. Undisputedly, in the present case, the application has been filed after a period of 36 years which can be definitely be considered as an application filed beyond the reasonable period. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that -8- NC: 2023:KHC-D:7796 WP No. 101257 of 2016 respondent nos.1 & 2 were not justified in passing the impugned orders.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders at Annexures-L & N are quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KK