Karnataka High Court
Atyam Nageshwararao S/O. Gopalkrishna ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 November, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
WP No. 100082 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 100082 OF 2021 (SCST-)
BETWEEN:
1. ANTEM NAGESHWAR
S/O. GOPALKRISHNA MURTHY
AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O.H.NO.118, 1ST WARD,
SANGAPUR-583227, TQ. GANGAVATHI,DIST. KOPPAL
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A S PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL-583201
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KOPPAL, TQ & DISTRICT KOPPAL-583201
KM
SOMASHEKAR
4. THE TAHASILDAR, GANGAVATHI TALUKA,
Digitally signed by K GANGAVATHI-583201, DIST. KOPPAL
M SOMASHEKAR
Location: High court
of Karnataka, 5. SAKRAMMA D/O. LATE UMLEPPA @ HUMELAPPA
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad AGE 57 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. SANGAPUR-583227 TQ. GANGAVATHI
DIST. KOPPAL
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V S KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4
SRI B C JNANAYYASWAMI, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
-2-
WP No. 100082 of 2021
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO WRIT OR
CERTIORRI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING
THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION DATED 17.12.2020 ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AS PER ANNEXURE.F.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The land bearing Sy.No.26/1 measuring 4 acres 20 guntas situated at Sangapura village, Gangavathi Taluk, was granted in favour of the father of the 5th respondent, who belonged to scheduled caste community. The subject land measuring 2 acres out of 4 acres in the said land was conveyed to the petitioner by a registered sale deed dated 17.9.2004.
2. Such being the case, the 5th respondent submitted an application under Section 5 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short `PTCL Act') for resumption and restoration of the subject land stating that the subject land was conveyed in contravention of Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act.
3. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the application stating that the subject land was not a granted land as defined under Section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act, against which, the 5th -3- WP No. 100082 of 2021 respondent filed an appeal under Section 5(A) of the PTCL Act before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the application for resumption and restoration of the subject land of the 5th respondent, against which, the present petition is filed.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
5. The grant is of the year 1971 and an extent of 2 acres out of 4 acres in the subject land was conveyed to the petitioner by a registered sale deed dated 17.9.2004. After twelve years from the date of sale, the 5th respondent filed an application for resumption and restoration of the subject land on 24.9.2016.
6. The circular issued by the Government only states that the authorities concerned are required to examine the application for resumption and restoration with reference to the facts and circumstances of each case so as to achieve the object of PTCL Act.
-4-WP No. 100082 of 2021
7. The grantee having not filed the application for restoration within reasonable time is not entitled for restoration of land.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi -vs- State of Karnataka and another supra has held 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 the PTCL Act. It has been held that Section 5 of the Act neither provides for any period within which an application under the Act has to be made nor prescribes the time within which suo motu action may be initiated. The provisions of the statute even in the absence of any period of limitation must be invoked within reasonable time and the period of delay of more than 10 years in initiation of proceeding has been held to be unreasonable.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ningappa VS. Deputy Commissioner and Others reported in (2020) 14 SCC 236 has held that an application seeking for restoration and -5- WP No. 100082 of 2021 resumption filed after an inordinate delay is not maintainable and should have been done within a reasonable period of time and if such applications are filed after considerable delay, it should be rejected on the ground of delay alone.
10. The subject land was granted to grantee in an auction conducted for an upset price. Hence, the subject land is not a granted land as defined under Section 3(1)(b) of PTCL Act and does not attract the provisions of PTCL Act as held by the Apex Court in the case of B K Muniraju -vs- State of Karnataka (AIR 2008 SC 1438). Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned notification dated 17.12.2020 vide Annexure-F issued by the 2nd respondent is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8