Karnataka High Court
Sri. Narasimha Murthy P V vs State Of Karnataka on 13 February, 2020
Bench: Chief Justice, Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT APPEAL No.77 OF 2020 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY P.V.
S/O K. VENKATARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
2. SRI MUNIRAJU P.V.
S/O K. VENKATARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT MALLIKARJUNAPURA
VILLAGE, AMBAJI DURGA HOBLI
CHINTAMANI TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 105.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI PRASHANTH P.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M.S. BUILDING
K.R. CIRCLE
VIDHANA VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001.
-2-
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 105.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION
CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 105.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK
SIDLAGHATTA
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 105.
5. SRI V. NARAYANAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY Lrs.
SRI NARAYANASWAMY N.
SRI LATE NARAYANAPPA V.
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
AGRICULTURE
R/AT Y. HUNASENAHALLI
KOTHANUR POST
SIDLAGHATTHA TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 105.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A.C. BALARAJ, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO A) SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:20.12.2019 PASSED IN
W.P.50196/2014(SC-ST) AND TO CONFIRM THE ORDERS
PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND THE
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER VIDE ANNEXURE - E AND G IN
WP.NO.50196/2016 AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the order dated 20th December 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.50196/2014.
2. By order dated 25th May 1978, the land in Sy.118 measuring 1 acre 28 guntas situated at Gyaradi village, Kasaba Hobli, Shidlagatta Taluk K was granted in favor Venkatarayappa with a condition that the granted land should not be alienated for a period of 15 years. During his life time, the original grantee sold the land in favour of V Narayanappa, the father of the fifth respondent herein. Appellants are the children of deceased Venkatarayappa.
3. After coming into force of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short `PTCL Act'), the appellants filed an application in the year 2010 with the third respondent - Assistant Commissioner under Section 5 of the said PTCL Act for -4- resumption and restitution of the granted land in their favour. Third respondent - Assistant Commissioner by order dated 12th December 2012 allowed the application holding that alienation of land in question made by the father of the appellants is hit by sub- Section (1) of Section 4 of the PTCL Act and restored the land in favour of the appellants.
4. Fifth respondent herein challenged the order passed by the third respondent - Assistant Commissioner before the second respondent - Deputy Commissioner under Section 5-A of the PTCL Act. Second respondent - Deputy Commissioner after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the third respondent restoring the land in favour of the appellants herein.
5. Being aggrieved , fifth respondent filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the order/s passed by the second and third respondents restoring the land in favour of the appellants herein. -5-
6. Learned Single Judge after hearing the parties proceeded to set aside the order/s passed by the second and third respondents on the ground that restoration of the granted land in favour of the appellants cannot be sustained since the application for resumption and restitution was not filed by within a reasonable time. He held so by following the law laid down by the Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi
-vs- State of Karnataka and another1and Chhedi Lal Yadav and others -vs- Hari Kishore Yadav (D) Thr. Lrs and others2.
7. Taking exception to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, this present appeal has been filed.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants being illiterate and coming from economically and socially backward community did not file an application for restoration 1 2018 (1) Kar.L.R 5 (SC) 2 [2018 (1) Kar.L.R 1 (SC)] -6- within a reasonable time. He further submitted that the PTCL Act being a beneficial legislation, the learned Single Judge was not justified in setting aside the order of restoration of land in his favour only on the ground that the application was not filed within a reasonable time and instead should have condoned the delay in filing the application u/s 5 of PTCL Act. He further submitted that learned Single Judge has erred in setting aside the order of restoration on the ground that the application was not filed within a reasonable time. Accordingly, the learned counsel sought for allowing the appeal.
9. We have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel and also perused the material on record.
10. Admittedly, the land in question was granted to the father of the appellants in the year 1978 and during his life time, he sold the land to the father of the fifth respondent by executing a registered sale -7- deed dated 25th April 1985. Appellants filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act for restoration only in the year 2010 ie., after a lapse of 31 years from the date of commencement of PTCL Act. Learned Single Judge relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra) allowed the writ petition and further set aside the orders of the second and third respondents restoring the land in favour of the appellants on the ground that application was not filed within reasonable time.
11. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants being illiterate and coming from economically weaker section did not file an application for restoration within a reasonable time and the PTCL Act being a welfare legislation and as such, the delay in filing the application for restoration of land should have been condoned cannot be accepted for the reason that the application which was not filed within a reasonable time is not maintainable as held by -8- the Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra). Further there can be no explanation for filing an application for restoration after an inordinate delay of 31 years.
12. Appellants having failed to file an application for restoration within a reasonable time are not entitled for restoration and the learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the order/s passed by the second and third respondents restoring the granted land in favour of the appellants.
13. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court that the grantees are not entitled for restoration of land, if an application for restoration is not filed within a reasonable time from the date of commencement of PTCL Act, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any illegalities or perversity.
-9-
14. Under these circumstances, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE bkm