Karnataka High Court
P R Sheshadri vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 February, 2020
Author: H T Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
W.P.No.51279 OF 2015(SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
P.R.Sheshadri,
S/o Late. P.Ramanathan,
Aged about 67 years,
R/at No.6, Gulmohar Enclave,
White Field Road,
Munnekollalu Village,
Bengaluru-560 037. ... Petitioner
(By Sri. B.N.Prakash for
Sri. Mayanna, B.L. Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore-560 001.
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
Bengaluru District,
Bengaluru-560 001.
3. The Assistant Commissioner,
Bengaluru North Division,
Bengaluru-560 001.
2
4. Sri. Chandrashekar,
S/o Late. Govindappa,
Aged about 55 years,
R/at No.36, 8th Cross,
Lakshmi Layout, Marathalli,
Bengaluru-560 037.
5. Sri.B.Sheshareddy,
S/o Subbareddy,
Major,
R/at No.11/35,
Devarakadve Village & Mandal,
Mehaboob Nagar District-509204,
Andhra Pradesh,
Presently in Telangana State.
6. Sri. Y. Madhu,
S/o Bhaskara Naidu,
Major,
Managing Director of
M/s. Saranya Builders,
R/at: No.90, K.B.Homes,
Munnekollalu Village,
Bengaluru-560037.
7. Varindar Kumar Aggarwal,
Son of Shri Sewak Ram
Aged about 54 years,
Residing at No.10/13,
4th Cross, Wilson Garden,
Bengaluru - 560 027.
8. Preeti Agarwal,
Wife of Mr.Varindar Kumar Aggarwal,
Aged about 46 years,
Residing at No.10/13,
4th Cross, Wilson Garden,
Bengaluru - 560 027. ... Respondents
3
(By Smt. Shilpa S. Gogi, HCGP. For R1 to R3:
Sri.P.N.Nanja Reddy, Advocate for R4:
Sri. Ajesh Kumar S. Advocate for R7 & R8:
Notice to R5 is dispensed with)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order
dated: 23.07.2015 passed by the R2 Deputy Commissioner at
Annexure-A.
This writ petition, coming on for hearing, this day, the
Court, made the following:
ORDER
This writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.07.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure- A, whereby the Deputy Commissioner has allowed the appeal filed by the legal representative of the original grantee and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for reconsideration.
2. Brief facts of the case are that land bearing Sy. No.42/2, measuring 02 acres situated at Munnekolalu Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk was alleged to be granted in favour of one Sabhapathi S/o.Thamba on 20.11.1931. The legal representatives of the original grantee have sold 1 acre of land 4 in favour of one Yellega by a sale deed dated 28.07.1947, Yellega in turn sold the land in favour of one Ramaiah Reddy on 27.04.1979, Ramaiah Reddy in turn sold the land in favour of one Pullappa on 13.08.1952. The legal representatives of the original grantee have sold the remaining 1 acre of land in favour of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the year 1995 through different sale deeds. Totally 2 acres of land was in possession of the petitioner. The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PTCL Act' for short) came into force on 01.01.1979. The legal representative of original grantee has filed the application before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 5 of the PTCL Act seeking resumption of the land in the year 2012. The Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 17.03.2014 has rejected the application filed by the legal representative of the original grantee on the ground that he has not produced any records to show that it is a granted land. Being aggrieved by the same, the legal representative of the original grantee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5A of the PTCL Act. 5 The Deputy Commissioner by order dated 23.07.2015 has allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for reconsideration on the ground that similar application filed by the legal representatives of the grantees in respect of Sy.No.42/4 were allowed by the Assistant Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Sri. B.N.Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Assistant Commissioner has rightly rejected the application of the legal representative of the original grantee on that ground that there is no grant in favour of predecessor of respondent No.4. Secondly, he contended that even assuming that it is a granted land, the land has been sold in favour of one Yelliga by a sale deed dated 28.07.1947 and remaining 1 acre sold in favour of the petitioner in the year 1995 and the application for resumption of the land was filed in the year 2012. In respect of 1 acre of land application was filed after a lapse of 32 years from the date the Act came into force and in respect of other 1 acre of land is concerned, the application has been filed after a lapse of 17 years of the date of 6 sale. Therefore, there is an inordinate delay in invoking the provisions of Section 5 of the PTCL Act. In support of his contentions, he has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in 2018 (1) Kar. LR 5 (SC). Thirdly, he contended that the Deputy Commissioner has remanded the matter on the basis that in respect of grant of the land in Sy.No.42/4 an application has been allowed by the Assistant Commissioner on 01.04.2008. In fact the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 01.04.2008 has been challenged before the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner has set aside the same and the same has been confirmed by this Court in W.P.No.29858/2009. Without considering this aspect of the matter the Deputy Commissioner has remanded the matter. Hence, he sought for allowing the petition.
5. Per contra, Smt.Savitramma, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri P.N.Nanja Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4 contended that the 7 land in dispute has been granted in the year 1931 and as on the date of grant the non-alienation period was 10 years. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The legal representatives of original grantee have sold 1 acre of land in the year 1947 and another 1 acre of land in favour of the petitioner in the year 1995 without obtaining permission as per Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act. Since there is violation of Section 4(2) of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 further contended that since the matter is remanded for reconsideration and the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. He further contends that since the legal representative of original grantee was not aware of the provisions of the Act and only after he became aware he filed an application and if respondent No.4 is permitted he will file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay and he will explain the delay in approaching the authorities. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
8
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
8. The land bearing Sy.No.42/2, measuring 02 acres situated at Munnekolalu Village, Varthuru Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk was originally granted in favour of one Sabhapathi s/o.Thamba in the year 1931. The legal representatives of original grantee have sold 1 acre of land in favour of one Yellega in the year 1947. The remaining 1 acre was sold in the year 1995. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The application for resumption of land has been filed in the year 2012 and there is a delay of 32 years in filing the application for resumption of land in respect of the land sold in the year 1947 and in respect of remaining 1 acre which has been sold in the year 1995 there is a delay of 17 years from the date of sale. Since there is an inordinate delay in invoking the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act the application filed by the legal representative of the original grantee is not maintainable. The other contentions raised by the petitioner need not be gone into. 9 The Apex Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI (supra) at paragraph No.8 has held as under:
"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 farmers due to flood in the Kosi River which 10 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."
9. The Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has opined that application for invoking the Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act has to be filed within a reasonable time. In the case on hand, the land was granted in the year 1931. One acre of land was sold in the year 1947 and another one acre was sold in the year 1995. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The 11 application for resumption of the land under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act filed in the year 2012. There is an unexplained inordinate delay of 17 years in invoking the provisions of the PTCL Act. The application itself is not maintainable.
10. In respect of the contention of learned counsel for the respondent No.4 that he was not aware of the provisions of the Act and after he became aware, he filed the application, a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.846/2019 disposed of on 19.06.2019 at paragraph No.5 has held as under:
"5. The law on the aspect is very clear. There is no specific limitation prescribed in Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The application has to be filed within a reasonable time. By no stretch of imagination, the application made by the appellants, after a lapse of nearly 32 years from the date on which PTCL Act came into force, can be said to be filed within a reasonable time."
11. In view of the above, the contention of the fourth respondent is unsustainable.
12
12. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.07.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A is quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cm/-