Karnataka High Court
Mr Mohsin Ali Vakil vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 February, 2022
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.52764 OF 2014 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
MR.MOHSIN ALI VAKIL
S/O MR.WAHID ALI VAKIL
AGED 62 YEARS
C/O.NO.78
KORAMANGALA INDUSTRIAL AREA
JYOTHI NIVAS COLLEGE ROAD
KORAMANGAL
BANGALORE - 560095. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.B.RAMESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
VIDHANA SOUDHA
B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
BEHIND REVENUE BUILDING
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560009.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION
2
REVENUE BUILDING, K.G.ROAD
BANGALORE - 560009.
4. KALAPPA
S/O.GIRIYAPPA
AGED 64 YEARS
R/AT.GOWRANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK - 562101
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.
5. C.BANU PRAKASH
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O SRI.C.SATHYANARAYANAPPA
R/AT.NO.238/64, 6TH CROSS
JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560070.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SRI.D.C.PARAMESWARAIAH, HCGP FOR R1 TO 3;
SRI.S.VENKATESH SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
VIDE ORDER DATED 27.01.2022
NOTICE TO R5 - HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING
CERTAIN RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING - 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Sri.B.Ramesh., learned counsel for petitioner and Sri.D.C.Parameshwaraiah., learned HCGP for respondents 1 to 3 have appeared in person.
Sri.S.Venkatesh Shastry., learned counsel for respondent No.4 has appeared through video conferencing.
2. The facts are stated as under:-
It is stated that the land bearing Sy.No.33, measuring vast extent situated at Gowranahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District was a Government land. The said land was cultivated by number of villagers and they were in unauthorized cultivation. It is said that the Revenue Authorities as per the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Rules called for applications from unauthorized occupants seeking for regularization of their unauthorized occupation. Pursuant to the same, persons who were in occupation of the land made applications for regularization of their unauthorized occupation. The Committee after considering 4 the same and after holding an enquiry regularized occupation and Saguvali Chit was also issued.
It is stated that one Kalappa the fourth respondent was also one such person who was in unauthorized cultivation of Sy.No.33 renumbered as Sy.No.33/P15 measuring to an extent of 1 Acre 20 Guntas. The Special Deputy Commissioner regularized occupation of Kalappa - the fourth respondent vide order dated:31.05.1979 and the Saguvali Certificate was also issued in his favor and he continued to be in possession of the said property. His name was mutated and the property was renumbered as Sy.No.33/P15.
It is averred that due to legal necessity, Kalappa - the fourth respondent sold the said property in favor of one C.Banu Prakash - the fifth respondent under a registered sale deed dated 14.08.1995. Pursuant to the sale deed, C.Banu Prakash - the fifth respondent was put in possession of the property. His name was mutated in the revenue entries vide M.R.No.11/1995-96. It is said 5 that C.Banu Prakash - the fifth respondent was not able to carry on agricultural activities hence he sought permission for conversion of the land from agricultural purpose to non-agricultural purpose. The Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 29.01.2004 accorded permission. It is further averred that C.Banu Prakash - the fifth respondent sold the land in favor of the petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 09.12.2014.
As things stood thus, Kalappa - the fourth respondent filed application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short 'the PTCL Act') before the Assistant Commissioner in No.K.SC.ST.44/2005-06 against C.Banu Prakash - the fifth respondent. The Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 20.06.2006 allowed the appeal and held that the sale deed dated 14.08.1995 as null and void, and directed the Tahasildar, Anekal Taluk, Anekal to take necessary action and to make necessary entries in the revenue records as 6 per rules. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner in No. SC.ST (A) 89/2006-07 and the appeal came to be dismissed on 28.04.2014.
Under these circumstances, the petitioner having left with no other alternative and efficacious remedy has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. Sri.B.R.Ramesh, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are wholly illegal and arbitrary.
Next, he submitted that the proceedings came to be initiated by fifth respondent in the year 2005 i.e., after 10 years from the first sale deed.
A further submission was made that in the instant case, the sale deed executed on 14.08.1995 and Kalappa - the fourth respondent filed application in the year 2005 i.e., after 10 years.
7
Counsel vehemently contended that the Apex Court in catena of decisions has held that the application for restoration of the granted land to be filed within a reasonable time.
Lastly, he submitted that viewed from any angle, the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are liable to be quashed and the writ petition may be allowed.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader justified the orders. He further submits that any action to challenge violation of provisions of the PTCL Act would have to be initiated within a reasonable time and in the case on hand, the action is initiated after 10 years from the date of sale. Accordingly, he submitted that appropriate order may be passed.
5. Heard the contention urged on behalf of parties and perused the writ papers with utmost care. 8
The short point which requires to be answered is whether the application filed under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act for resumption of the land is within reasonable time?
It is not in dispute that Kalappa - the fourth respondent was in unauthorized cultivation of land in question. Form - I Grant Certificate was issued in favor of Kalappa on 08.05.1979. The Revenue Authorities regularized the unauthorized occupation vide order dated:31.05.1979.
It is further noticed that the first alienation took place in the year 1995. The application under Sections 4 & 5 of the PTCL Act has been filed in the year 2005. There is an inordinate delay of 10 years in filing the application.
It is perhaps well to observe that the law is settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232 that application for restoration of land has to be filed 9 within a reasonable time. As already noted above, in the present case, the application is filed after 10 years. The Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have failed to notice the same.
I may venture to say that they have failed to have regard to relevant considerations and disregarded relevant matters. In my considered opinion, the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are unsustainable in law.
6. The Writ Petition is allowed. The order dated:20.06.2006 passed by the Assistant Commissioner in No.K.SC.ST.44/2005-06 at Annexure-'G' and the order dated:28.04.2014 passed by Deputy Commissioner in No.SC.ST.(A) 89/2006-07 at Annexure-'L' are quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE TKN/VMB