Karnataka High Court
Smt Kempamma vs The Deputy Commissioner on 12 February, 2020
Author: H T Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
W.P.No.6995 OF 2017(SC-ST)
C/W
W.P.No.6996 OF 2017(SC-ST)
WP No.6995/2017:
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Kempamma,
Aged about 55 years,
W/o Late. Sanne Gowda.
2. Smt. Bhagyamma,
Aged about 45 years,
W/o Late. Sanne Gowda.
3. Smt. Thayamma,
Aged about 40 years,
W/o Late. Deve Gowda.
4. Rajanna,
Aged about 46 years,
S/o Late. Dyavaiah.
All are residents of
Yeladahalli Village,
C.A.Kere Hobli, Maddur Taluk,
Mandya District-571 401. ... Petitioners
(By Sri.Shivaramu H.C., Advocate)
2
AND:
1. The Deputy Commissioner,
Mandya District,
Mandya-571 401.
2. The Assistant Commissioner,
Mandya District,
Mandya-571 401.
3. Smt. Narasamma,
Major,
W/o Late. Nagaraju.
4. M.Nagesh,
Major,
S/o Late. Nagaraju.
5. M.Nagendra,
Major,
S/o Late. Nagaraju.
6. M.Nagaveni,
Major,
D/o Late. Nagaraju.
All are residents of
Yeladahalli Village,
C.A.Kere Hobli, Mandya Taluk,
Mandya District-571401. ... Respondents
(By Smt. Savithramma, HCGP. for R1 & R2:
Sri.Srinivasa, D.C., Advocate for R3 to R6)
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the order
dated:09.01.2017 passed by the R1 in proceedings at
3
Annexure-F and consequently quash the order dated:27.08.2015
passed by the R2 in proceedings at Annexure-D & etc.,
WP No.6996/2017:
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Channamma,
W/o Kothamalla @ Siddegowda
Since dead by her LRs.
1(a) Smt. Dundamma,
Aged about 45 years,
W/o Late. Sidde Gowda.
Bin Late Chennamma.
1(b) Prakash,
Aged about 30 years,
S/o Late.Channamma.
1(c) Kumar,
Aged about 27 years,
S/o Late. Channamma.
1(d) Deve Gowda,
Aged about 55 years,
S/o late. Channamma.
1(e) Smt. Avanamma,
Aged about 50 years,
D/o Late. Channamma
W/o Sanne Gowda.
1(f) Smt. Sarojamma,
Aged about 46 years,
D/o Late. Channamma,
W/o Chikkamoga,
Resident of K.P.Doddi Village,
C.A.Kere Hobli, Maddur Taluk,
4
Mandya District-571 401.
1(g) Chikkasidde Gowda,
Aged about 48 years,
S/o Late. Channamma,
w/o Sanne Gowda.
Petitioner Nos.1(a) to 1(e)
And 1(g) are residents of
Yelandahalli Village,
C.A.Kere Hobli, Maddur Taluk,
Mandya District-571 401. ... Petitioners
(By Sri.Shivaramu H.C., Advocate)
AND:
1. The Deputy Commissioner,
Mandya District,
Mandya-571 401.
2. The Assistant Commissioner,
Mandya District,
Mandya-571 401.
3. Smt. Narasamma,
Major,
W/o Late. Nagaraju.
4. M.Nagesh,
Major,
S/o Late. Nagaraju.
5. M.Nagendra,
Major,
S/o Late. Nagaraju.
6. M.Nagaveni,
5
Major,
D/o Late. Nagaraju.
All are residents of
Yeladahalli Village,
C.A.Kere Hobli, Mandya Taluk,
Mandya District-571401. ... Respondents
(By Smt. Savithramma, HCGP. for R1 & R2:
Sri.Srinivasa, D.C., Advocate for R3 to R6)
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the order
dated:09.01.2017 passed by the R1 in proceedings at
Annexure-F and consequently quash the order dated:27.08.2015
passed by the R2 in proceedings at Annexure-D & etc.,
These writ petitions, coming on for preliminary hearing in
'B' group, this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER
In both the writ petitions the petitioners are challenging the similar orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. Hence, both the writ petitions are clubbed together, heard and common order is being passed.
2. In both the writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 09.01.2017 passed by the first respondent and the orders dated 27.08.2015 passed by the second respondent vide Annexures F and D, respectively, in both 6 the petitions, whereby the authorities have resumed the land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee 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').
3. The brief facts of the case are that the land bearing Sy.No.90/8 situated at Yaladahalli Village, C.A.Kere Hobli, Maddur Taluk measuring 2 acres was originally granted in favour of one Nagaiah under Darkhast Rules and saguvali chit has been issued on 13.10.1943 with a condition of non-alienation for ever. The original grantee sold the land in favour of one Chikkaputte Gowda under a registered sale deed dated 04.03.1966. The said Chikkaputte Gowda sold an extent of one acre in favour of one Kempamma (petitioner in W.P.No.6995/2017) and another one acre in favour of one Channamma (petitioner in W.P.No.6996/2017) on 03.11.1969. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The legal representatives of the original grantee filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act for resumption of land to the Assistant Commissioner in the 7 year 2014. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 27.08.2015 has allowed the application and resumed the two acres of land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein filed appeals before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5-A of the PTCL Act. The Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 09.01.2017 dismissed the appeals confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners have filed these writ petitions.
4. Sri H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the land was originally granted in favour of one Nagaiah in the year 1943. The original grantee sold the land in favour of one Chikkaputtegowda in the year 1966. The said Chikkaputtegowda sold an extent of one acre each in favour of one Kempamma and Channamma in the year 1969. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The legal representatives of the original grantee have filed an application for resumption of land in the year 2014 after a lapse of 34 years from the date the Act came into force. There is inordinate delay 8 in filing the application. The application itself is not maintainable. In support of his contention, he has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in 2017 SCC Online SC 1862. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.
5. Per contra, Smt.Savitramma, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Srinivasa D.C., learned counsel appearing for the third respondent have submitted that the land was originally granted in favour of one Nagaiah in the year 1943 with a condition of non-alienation for ever. However, by violating the condition the original grantee has sold the land in the year 1966. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The land was sold by violating the provisions of Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act. Hence, the authorities have rightly resumed the land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.
9
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers.
[
7. It is not in dispute that the land in question was originally granted in favour of one Nagaiah in the year 1943. The original grantee sold the land in favour of one Chikkaputtegowda in the year 1966, who in turn sold the land of one acre each in favour of the petitioners herein in the year 1969. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The legal representatives of the original grantee filed the application for resumption of the land in the year 2014, after a lapse of 34 years from the date the Act came into force. There is an inordinate delay in filing the application. The Apex Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in 2017 SCC Online SC 1862 has held as hereinbelow:
"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. This Section does not prescribe any 10 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 11 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, 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."
8. The Apex Court in the above judgment has held that application for resumption has to be filed within a reasonable time. In the case on hand, land was granted in the year 1943 and the first transaction has taken place in the year 1966. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979 and the application for resumption of land was filed in the year 2014 and there is a delay of more than 34 years in filing the application from the date the Act came into force, the application itself is not maintainable. In view of the above, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
12
9. Accordingly, writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 09.01.2017 passed by the first respondent and the orders dated 27.08.2015 passed by the second respondent vide Annexures F and D in both the petitions are quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cm/-