Karnataka High Court
Smt. Kempamma vs Sri. Bheemegowda on 17 March, 2022
Bench: Alok Aradhe, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT APPEAL NO.3659/2019
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. KEMPAMMA
D/O. SANNA @ SANNAIAH,
W/O. ARASAIAH,
MAJOR,
2. SMT. LALITHAMMA
D/O. SANNA @ SANNAIAH,
MAJOR,
3. SMT. NAGAMMA
D/O. SANNA @ SANNAIAH,
MAJOR,
4. SMT. GIDDAMMA
D/O. SANNA @ SANNAIAH,
MAJOR,
APPELLANT NOS.1 TO 4
ARE RESIDING AT
GANIGARAHOSALLI VILLAGE,
SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI,
HASSAN TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 234. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. N.SHARADHA, ADV. FOR
SRI MURTHY,D.L., ADV.)
2
AND:
1. SRI. BHEEMEGOWDA
S/O. LATE THIMMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
R/AT GANIGARAHOSALLI VILLAGE,
SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI,
HASSAN TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 234.
HANUMANTHEGOWDA
SINCE DEAD,
REP. BY HSI LRS,
2. DYAVAMMA
W/O. LATE. HANUMANTHEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
3. KUMARA
S/O. LATE HANUMANTHEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
4. PUTTEGOWDA
S/O. LATE HANUMANTHEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4
ARE R/AT GANIGARAHOSALLI VILLAGE,
SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI,
HASSAN TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 234.
5. KAMALA
D/O. LATE HANUMANTHEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT CANARA BANK ROAD,
KATTAYA HOBLI,
GORUR, HASSAN TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 234.
6. VASANTHA RAJ
S/O. LATE HANUMANTHEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 128,
3
5TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
NEAR ST. MARIES SCHOOL,
DEVANNANAPALYA,
DASANAPURA,
BENGALURU-561 023.
7. SRI. DEVARAJEGOWDA
S/O. LATE THIMMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/AT GANIGARA HOSALLI VILLAGE,
SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI,
HASSAN TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 234.
8. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HASSAN DISTRICT,
HASSAN 573 201.
9. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HASSAN SUB DIVISION,
HASSAN DISTRICT,
HASSAN 573 201. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.C.PRATHEEP, ADV. FOR C/R-1 TO 7;
SMT. VANI.H., AGA, FOR R8 & R9)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 01.08.2019 IN W.P. NO.47849/2018 (SC/ST) PASSED BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND THEREBY CONFIRM THE
ORDERS PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.9 & 8, BEARING
NO.LND SC ST HSN 06/2013-14 DATED 10.10.2014 AND PTCI
11/2-14-15 DATED 14.08.2018 RESPECTIVELY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
4
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is preferred challenging the order dated 01.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.47849/2018.
2. The parties are referred to by the rank assigned to them in the writ petition.
3. Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of this appeal are, the land bearing Sy.No.42/1 measuring 23 guntas and Sy.No.52 (Old No.44/4) measuring 3 acres 30 guntas situated at Ganigara Hosahalli village, Shanthigrama Hobli, Hassan Taluk and District, was originally granted on 27.01.1939 to Sannamari @ Chikka who is allegedly the grandfather of respondents 3 to 6.
4. The children of original grantee had sold the land bearing Sy.No.42/1 measuring 23 guntas and Sy.No.52 measuring 2 acres in favour of one Thimmegowda on 14.09.1954. The remaining extent of land in Sy.No.52 i.e., 1 acre 30 guntas was sold by them in favour of the aforesaid Thimmegowda on 21.07.1964.
5
5. Respondents 3 to 6 who claim to be the grandchildren of the original grantee had filed an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'PTCL Act') on 06.12.2013 seeking restoration of the aforesaid lands on the ground that the transactions were hit by Section 4 of the PTCL Act.
6. The Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 10.10.2014 had allowed the said application and the same was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 14.08.2018. It is under these circumstances, the petitioners who are the legal representatives of Thimmegowda had filed W.P.No.47849/2018 before this Court which was allowed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 01.08.2019. Being aggrieved by the same, respondents 3 to 6 have preferred this intra court appeal.
7. Learned Counsel for the appellants/respondents 3 to 6 submits that the learned Single Judge was not justified in allowing the appeal only on the ground that the application for restoration has been filed beyond a reasonable time. He 6 submits that the provisions of the PTCL Act should be construed liberally and mere delay in filing the application should not come in the way of the authorities granting relief since the PTCL Act is a beneficial legislation.
8. Per contra, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Single Judge having appreciated that the application was filed after 33 years from the date of PTCL Act coming into force, has rightly allowed the petition and therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the said order, and accordingly, prays to dismiss the appeal.
9. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments addressed on both sides and also perused the material available on record.
10. The undisputed facts of the case are, that the sale of the granted lands were made in favour of Thimmegowda on 14.09.1954 and 21.07.1964. The PTCL Act has come into force on 01.01.1979. Respondents 3 to 6 who claim to be the legal representatives of the original grantee have filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act for restoration of 7 the land only on 06.12.2013. No explanation is offered for the inordinate delay of 33 years in filing the application.
11. The learned Single Judge of this Court in the background of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER - (2020)14 SCC 232, has held that the application filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act which was after 33 years from the date of the PTCL Act coming into force was beyond a reasonable period and has accordingly, held that the application should not have been entertained by the competent authorities.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VIVEK M.HINDUJA VS M.ASWATHA - (2019)1 Kant LJ 819 SC, has reiterated the same and held that any act or action under Section 5 of the PTCL Act which is taken beyond a reasonable period, should not be entertained.
13. In the case of NINGAPPA VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & OTHERS - (2020)14 SCC 236, has held that an application 8 filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act after a delay of nine years was beyond reasonable period.
14. Under the circumstances, the learned Single Judge was fully justified in holding that the application filed in the present case after a delay of 33 years was beyond a reasonable period, and therefore, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge impugned in this appeal. We, therefore, find no ground to interfere with the same.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE KK