Karnataka High Court
Shri Muniyappa @ Muniga vs The Deputy Commissioner on 8 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK.S.KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.14903 OF 2014 (SC - ST)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.154 OF 2014
IN W.P.No.14903/2014
BETWEEN:
1. MUNIYAPPA,
S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HARADI,
JANGAMKOTE HOBLI,
SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
2. SRI. ERAPPA,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S
2(a) SMT.AKKALAMMA,
D/O LATE ERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
RESIDING AT YENNANGUR VILLAGE,
SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
2(b) SRI.RAJANNA,
S/O LATE ERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT YENNANGUR VILLAGE,
2
SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
2(c) SRI.MUNIGOWDA,
S/O LATE ERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
RESIDING AT YENNANGUR VILLAGE,
SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
2(d) SMT.MEENAMMA,
D/O LATE ERAPPA,
W/O CHOWDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK,
HARALAHALLI,
SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
2(e) SRI.RAMESH E.,
S/O LATE ERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
RESIDING AT YENNANGUR VILLAGE,
SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
2(f) SMT.SUMITHRA E.,
D/O LATE ERAPPA,
W/O RAMANANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
RESIDING AT THIMAPPANAHALLI,
HOSKOTE TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
2(g) SRI.MURTHY E.,
S/O LATE ERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDING AT YENNANGUR VILLAGE,
SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
3
2(h) SMT.JAYALAKSHMAMMA E.,
D/O LATE ERAPPA,
W/O KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/A GANGAWARA,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
2(i) SRI.DEVRAJA E.,
S/O LATE ERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
RESIDING AT YENNANGUR VILLAGE,
SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
2(j) KRISHNA E.,
S/O LATE ERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
RESIDING AT YENNANGUR VILLAGE,
SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
3. SRI. VENKATESHAPPA,
S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
4. SRI. PILLAPPA,
S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE
RESIDING AT YENNANGUR VILLAGE
JANGAMKOTE HOBLI,
SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAHUL S REDDY FOR
SRI.DEEPAK J., ADVOCATES)
4
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT,
CHIKKABALLAPURA.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION,
CHIKKABALLAPURA.
4. MUNIYAPPA @ MUNIGA,
REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS.
4(a) SMT.MUNIYAMMA,
W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA @ MUNIGA,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
R/A BINNAMANGALA VILLAGE,
BASHETTIHALLI HOBLI,
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.
4(b) SMT.CHENNAMMA,
W/O SRIRAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/A IDDALUDU VILLAGE,
VASALA HOBLI,
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.
4(c) SMT.PARVATHAMMA,
W/O VENKATARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/A SIDDAPURA VILLAGE,
5
KASABA HOBLI,
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
4(d) SMT.PAPAMMA,
W/O YERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/A GALDLUCHINTE,
SADLE HOBLI,
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.
5. CHENNAKRISHNA,
S/O CHENNARAYA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
RESIDING AT YENNANGUR VILLAGE,
JANGAMKOTE HOBLI,
SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.SANDESH KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI.G.A.SRIKANTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
R4(A-D) - SERVED UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED IN ANNEXURE - C
DATED 29.8.2011 PASSED BY THE R-3 & QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 23.12.2013 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE
ANNEXURE - D; GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY
THE OPERATION OF THE ORDER PASSED IN ANNEXURE
- C DATED 29.8.2011 PASSED BY THE R-3 & QUASH
THE ORDER DATED 23.12.2013 PASSED BY THE R-2
VIDE ANNEXURE - D AND ETC.
6
IN W.P.No.154/2014
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. MUNIYAPPA @ MUNIGA,
S/O CHENNARAYA,
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
2. SHRI. CHANNAKRISHNA,
S/O SHRI MUNIYAPPA @ MUNIGA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE,
PETITIONERS 1 & 2 ARE
R/A YENNANGUR VILLAGE,
JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI,
SIDDLAGHATTA TALUK,
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.G.A.SRIKANTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT,
CHICKBALLAPUR - 562 101.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
CHICKBALLAPUR SUB - DIVISION,
CHICKBALLAPUR - 562 101.
3. THE TAHSILDAR,
SIDDLGHATTA TALUK,
SIDDLAGHATTA - 562 101.
4. SHRI. MUNIYAPPA,
S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
R/A HARADI,
7
JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI,
SIDDLAGHATTA TALUK - 562 101.
5. SHRI. ERAPPA,
S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
6. SHRI. VEKATESHAPPA,
S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
7. SHRI. PILLAPPA,
S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS 4 TO 7 ARE
R/A YENNANGUR VILLAGE,
JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI,
SIDDLAGHATTA TALUK,
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.SANDESH KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI.RAHUL S REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.DEEPAK J., ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER DATED 23.12.2013 PASSED BY THE R-1 DY.
COMMISSIONER VIDE ANNEXURE - H; DIRECT THE R-2 &
3 TO IMPLEMENT THE ORDER DATED 29.8.2011 PASSED
BY THE R-2 ASST. COMMISSIONER VIDE ANNEXURE - G
AND ETC.,
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FINAL DISPOSAL
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
8
ORDER
The petitioners (purchasers) in W.P.No.14903/2014 being aggrieved by the order dated 29.08.2011 passed by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-C and also the order dated 23.12.2013 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-H, have filed these writ petitions.
2. The petitioners in W.P.No.154/2014 is filed by the legal representatives of the grantee, challenging the order passed by respondent No.2 dated 23.12.2013 vide Annexure-D. The parties are referred to as per their rankings in W.P.No.14903/2014.
3. Brief facts leading to filing of these writ petitions are that:
The land bearing Sy.No.86 (old) and Sy.No.162 (new) measuring 01 acre 37 guntas is situated at Yennangur Village, Jangamkote Hobli, Shidlaghatta Taluk, Chikkaballapura District. The said land was granted under Dharkast Rules in favour of respondent No.4 in terms of the Saguvali chit dated 25.05.1951 with a condition that 9 he should not alienate the land in question for a period of ten years. Respondent No.4 by violating the said condition executed a registered sale deed dated 14.04.1960 in favour of Sri Muniswamappa, who is the father of the petitioners. Respondent No.4 has filed an application 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') before respondent No.3 seeking to declare the registered sale deed dated 14.04.1960 executed by respondent No.4 in favour of the father of petitioners as null and void and to restore the possession of the land. Respondent No.3 after enquiry passed an order, allowed the application filed by respondent No.4. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.3, preferred an appeal before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 after hearing on both side, passed an impugned order dated 23.12.2013 directed to restore the possession of the land in favour of the Government. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed 10 W.P.No.14903/2014 and respondent Nos.4 and 5 in the said writ petition being aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner for resumption of the land in favour of the Government has filed W.P.No.154/2014.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners i.e., the purchaser and also the learned counsel for the legal representatives of the original grantee and learned HCGP.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.4 executed a registered sale deed in favour of the father of the petitioner on 14.04.1960 and the PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. He further submits that respondent No.4 filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act in the year 2018 i.e., after lapse of more than 40 years from the date of execution of the registered sale deed and also more than 30 years from the Act came into force. He further submits that the application filed by respondent No.4 is beyond reasonable time. He further places reliance on the judgments of the 11 Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs State of Karnataka and another reported in 2018(1) Kar.L.R 5 (SC) and in the case of Vivek M. Hinduja and others vs M. Ashwatha and others reported in 2018(1) Kar.L.R. 176 (SC). Hence, he submits that respondent No.3 ought to have rejected the application filed by respondent No.4 on the ground of delay and laches. On the contrary, respondent No.3 has allowed the application filed by respondent No.4. He further submits that the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 are contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (Supra). Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition filed by the purchasers and to dismiss the writ petition filed by the grantee.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that the sale transaction is in contravention of Section 4 of the PTCL Act. He further submits that respondent No.3 was justified in allowing the application 12 filed by respondent No.4. He further submits that respondent No.2 has committed an error while disposing of the appeal, wherein instead of directing to restore the land in favour of respondent No.4 has passed an order to restore the land in favour of the Government. The said finding is illegal and erroneous. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition filed by the purchaser and to allow the writ petition filed by the grantee.
7. In the writ petition filed by the legal representatives of the purchaser, pray to allow the applications filed by them.
8. Learned counsel for the grantee submits that respondent No.4 is in possession of the property.
9. Heard and perused the records and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.
10. The land in Sy.No.86 was granted in favour of respondent No.4 in the year 1950-51 and Saguvali chit was issued on 25.05.1951. Respondent No.4 had executed 13 a registered sale deed in favour of the father of the petitioners on 14.04.1960. The PTCL Act came into force in the year 01.01.1979. Respondent No.4 has filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act alleging that the sale transaction is in violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act. Respondent No.3 after enquiry, allowed the application and recorded the finding that the sale deed is in violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act. Respondent No.4 has filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act in the year 2008 i.e., almost all 40 years from the date of execution of the registered sale deed and also almost all more than 30 year from the date of the Act came into force. Thus, the application filed by respondent No.4 is beyond reasonable time. The R4 has not explained the delay in filing an application at a belated stage.
11. In view of the law laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra), it is observed in para No.8 which reads as under: 14
"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 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 15 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, 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."16
12. In view of the law laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vivek M. Hinduja (supra), it is observed in para No.10 which reads as under:
"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 motuactions."
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act must be invoked within the reasonable time.
14. In the present case, the application has been filed after lapse of more than 30 years from the Act came into force. Thus, there is an inordinate delay in filing the application. Hence, on these grounds, the respondents ought to have rejected the application. On the contrary, allowed the application. The order passed by respondent 17 Nos.2 and 3 are contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra) and Vivek M. Hinduja (supra). The said decisions are severally applicable to the case on hand. Hence, on these ground, the writ petition filed by the legal representatives of the purchaser is liable to be allowed and the writ petition filed by the respondent is liable to be dismissed.
15. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i. The W.P.No.14903/2014 is allowed and W.P.No.154/2014 is dismissed;
ii. The impugned order passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 are set aside.
Sd/-
JUDGE ssb