Karnataka High Court
Sri. Ajjappa vs The Deputy Commissioner on 20 August, 2019
Author: H T Narendra Prasad
Bench: H. T. Narendra Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
W.P.No.28121 OF 2018(SC-ST)
AND
W.P.No.28480 OF 2018 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Ajjappa
S/o Hatteppa,
Aged about 65 years.
2. Sri. Manjanna
S/o Hanumanthappa,
Aged about 52 years.
3. Sri. Machendrappa
S/o Hanumanthappa,
Aged about 50 years.
4. Sri.Kariyanna
S/o Hanumanthappa,
Aged about 45 years.
All are residing at Chikkammanahalli,
Villae, Thalaku Hobli, Challakere Taluk,
Chitradurga District-577522. ... Petitioners
(By Sri. Siddappa B.M., Advocate)
2
AND:
1. The Deputy Commissioner
Chitradurga District,
Chitradurga-577501.
2. The Assistant Commissioner
Chitradurga Sub-Division,
Chitradurga-577 501.
3. Smt. Gowramma
W/o Jangli Ramanna,
Age:Major.
4. Smt. Savithramma
W/o Jangli Basavaraju,
Respondents No.3 & 4 are
Residing at Janata Colony
Behind Charma Mandi
Somaguddu Road,
Challakere Town-577522,
Chitradurga District. ... Respondents
(By Smt. Savithramma, HCGP for R1 & R2:
Sri.Patel D.Karegowda, Advocate for R3 & R4)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the order passed by
the respondent No.1 in case No.SCPTL(A)7/2017 dated:
20.06.2018, vide Annexure-B and the order passed by the
respondent No.2 in case No.SCPTL:CLK/03/2014-15 dated
30.05.2017 vide Annexure-A.
These writ petitions, coming on for Preliminary hearing in
'B' Group, this day, the Court, made the following:
3
ORDER
These writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for quashing of the order dated 20.06.2018 and the order dated 30.05.2017 produced as Annexures B and A, respectively.
2. The land bearing Sy.No.61/P and 153/P measuring 10 acres situated in Chikkammanahalli Village, Challakere Taluk was granted in favour of Bommaiah, S/o.Late Jangli Siddaiah on 12.09.1959. Pursuant to that grant the grant certificate was issued on 29.07.1967. The original grantee has sold the abovesaid land in favour of Ajjappa on 04.11.1987, who in turn has sold 6 acres of land in favour of petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 herein jointly, by a registered sale deed dated 28.12.1995. The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the PTCL Act') came into force on 01.01.1979. After the coming into force of the PTCL Act the legal representatives of the original grantee have filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act for restoration of the land in the year 2014. The Assistant Commissioner by exercising the power under Sections 4 and 5 of 4 the PTCL Act has allowed the application filed by the legal representatives of the original grantee by order dated 30.05.2017 produced as Annexure-A. Being aggrieved by the same petitioner has filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner by order dated 28.06.2018 has dismissed the appeal vide Annexure-B. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners have preferred these writ petitions.
3. Sri B.M.Siddappa, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the land was originally granted in the year 1959. The first sale in favour of the petitioner was on 06.11.1987. At the time of the grant the condition of alienation was fixed for 15 years. The land was sold after the completion of the said period. Secondly, he contended that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in 2017 SCC Online SC 1862, the application filed by the legal representatives of the grantee for restoration of the land is after 25 years. There is a delay in 5 invoking the provisions of Section 5 of the PTCL Act. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.
4. Per contra, Sri Patel D.Karegowda, learned counsel appearing for the grantee has submitted that the land has been granted in the year 1959. The non-alienation period is for 15 years. As per Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act if the sale is made after coming into force of the PTCL Act permission of the Government for transfer of the granted land has to be obtained. Hence, the authority has rightly restored the land in terms of Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act.
5. Smt.Savitramma, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the Act came into force on 01.01.1979 and sale has taken place on 06.11.1987 after coming into force of the PTCL Act. Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act clearly attract to the sale in respect of the property in dispute. Therefore, the authority has rightly passed the order . Hence, she sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers.
6
7. It is not in dispute that the land has been granted in favour of one Bommaiah on 12.09.1959. The said original grantee has sold the land in favour of Ajjappa by a registered sale deed dated 06.04.1987. Out of 10 acres the said Ajjappa has sold 6 acres in favour of petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 by a registered sale deed dated 28.12.1995. The said Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The application under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act was filed after lapse of 27 years. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NEKKANTI (supra) has held as hereunder:
"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 7 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, Chitradurga and Ors, 2000(2) Kr. L.J.Sh. N.4B holding that there is no limitation 8 provided by Section 5 of the Act and, therefore, an application can be made at any time, are overruled. Order accordingly."
8. In the case on hand, the sale has taken place on 06.11.1987. The application for restoration of granted land has been made in the year 2014. There is an unreasonable delay of 24 years in invoking Section 5 of the PTCL Act. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI (supra) the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner are unsustainable.
9. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. The order dated 30.05.2017 vide Annexure-A and the order dated 20.06.2018 vide Annexure-B are quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cm/-