Karnataka High Court
Sri M Ramaiah vs The Deputy Commissioner on 18 September, 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT PETITION No.28575 of 2014 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
Sri M.Ramaiah
S/o Late Muniswamaiah,
Aged about 67 years,
Residing at Kolevanahalli Village,
Nandi Hobli,
Chikkaballapur Taluk & District.
... Petitioner
(By Sri.K.H. Somashekhar, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Deputy Commissioner,
Chikkaballapur District,
Chikkaballapur - 562 101.
2. Assistant Commissioner
Chikkaballapur Sub Division,
Chikkaballapur - 562 101.
3. Smt. Munithayamma
W/o Narayanaswamy,
Major, Beediganahalli Village,
Nandi Hobli, Chikkaballapur Taluk,
Chikkaballapur District - 562 101.
... Respondents
(By Smt. Savithramma, HCGP for R1 and R2;
Sri M.Rajashekar, Advocate for R3 [Absent])
2
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the orders dated
07.05.2014 passed by respondent No.1 rejecting the appeal filed
by the petitioner and quash the order dated 12.09.2011 passed
by the respondent No.2 allowing the appeal filed by the
respondent No.3 by set aside sale deed dated 8.12.1987 and
order for restoring the land in favour of respondent No.3 vide
Annexure-A & B.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in 'B'
group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2. None appears for respondent No.3.
2. Aggrieved by the order dated 12.09.2011 in No.PTCL (CHIK)193/2007-08 passed by respondent No.2 and the order dated 07.05.2014 bearing case No.RA/SCST/8/2012-13 passed by respondent No.1, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 3
3. The case of the petitioner is that land measuring 1 acre 20 guntas in old survey No.11, new survey No.52 situated at Varamallenahalli Village, Nandi Hobli, Chikkaballapura Taluk, was granted in favour of one Mr.A.K.Papaiah, who was a scheduled caste person, in the year 1961 with a condition not to alienate the said land for a period of 15 years and saguvali chit was issued on 30.06.1962. The said A.K.Papaiah sold the land in favour of petitioner herein on 08.12.1987.
4. Thereafter respondent No.3 contending to be legal heir of original grantee, filed an application for restoration under the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) in the year 2007. Respondent No.1 was pleased to allow the application and ordered for restoration of the land. Against the said order, petitioner herein preferred an appeal before 4 respondent No.2 which has been rejected. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
5. It is noticed that land was granted in the year 1961 and the sale has taken place in the year 1987. After lapse of nearly 20 years from the date of sale, in the year 2007 respondent No.3 has filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. Though the alienation by the said original grantee in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land is hit by Section 4(2) of the Act, the application for restoration has been filed belatedly after lapse of 20 years.
6. The petitioner, in support of his contention, has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi -v- State of Karnataka and Another reported in 2018 (1) Kar. L.R 5 (SC) wherein at paragraph No.8 it has been 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. This 5 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, Chitradurga District, 6 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 of India in the case of VIVEK M.HINDUJA AND OTHERS Vs. M.ASHWATHA AND OTHERS reported in 2018 (1) Kar. L.R 176(SC) has held in paragraph 10, which reads 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. Thus, when no time is prescribed under the Act to file a petition for restoration, the same has to be filed within a reasonable time and delay of 20 years in filing the application for restoration cannot be said to be reasonable.
For the above reasons, the impugned orders at Annexures-A and B are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 12.09.2011 in 7 No.PTCL (CHIK)193/2007-08 passed by respondent No.2 and the order dated 07.05.2014 bearing case No.RA/SCST/8/2012-13 passed by respondent No.1 are hereby set aside.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE MKM