Karnataka High Court
M K Chandrappa vs Deputy Commissioner on 28 July, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO.58794/2013 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
M.K.CHANDRAPPA
SON OF MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.261,
PRESENT NO.1, 1ST B MAIN ROAD,
8TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE-560 095.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI KASHYAP N. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DISTRICT,
BANGALORE-560 009.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION,
BANGALORE-560 027.
3. A MALLESH KUMAR
SON OF A ABBAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 31 YERS,
RESIDING AT NO.328, H SIDDAIAH ROAD,
WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE-560 027.
2
4. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.
(R-4 AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 26.03.2021)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANITHA N., HCGP FOR R-1 AND R-2;
SRI C. JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
SRI H. DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.10.2013, PASSED BY THE R-
1/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT IN CASE
NO.SC/ST (A) 45/2012-13 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ORDER
DATED 8.6.2012, PASSED BY THE R-2/ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER CASE BEARING NO.K.SC/ST (A) 39/2010-11
VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND DISMISS THE CLAIM OF THE R-3 AND
ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The property bearing old No.26, old Khata No.340, Madivala notified area old property No.261, old khata No.340, situated at Koramangala Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring East to West 32 feet and North to South 41 feet totally measuring 1312 square feet originally belongs to 3 Abbaiah alias Chikkabbaiah who sold the subject property in favour of the petitioner herein by executing the registered sale deed dated 25.05.2000. In pursuance of the sale deed executed, the name of the petitioner was registered in the revenue records and he has also constructed a house and residing in the said property.
2. Such being the case, the respondent No.3, who is the son of Abbaiah alias Chikkabbaiah claiming that the subject property is a granted land as defined under Section 3(b) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ( hereinafter referred to as 'PTCL Act' for short) filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act alleging that the sale deed is in contravention of Section 4 (1) of the PTCL Act and sought for restoration of the said property in his favour.
3. The Assistant Commissioner concerned allowed the application filed by resuming and restoring the subject land in favour of the respondent No.4 after holding that the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner is null and void. 4
4. The said order which was taken up in an appeal filed by the petitioner was also confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner concerned against which this petition is filed.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the absence of an order of grant to establish that the subject property was granted to the father of the respondent No.3 only because he belongs to scheduled caste community, the provisions of PTCL Act are not applicable and the said impugned order is not sustainable. He further submits that the sale deed was executed in the year 2000 and after an inordinate delay of 10 years without offering any plausible explanation, the application filed by the respondent No.3 under Section 5 of the PTCL Act is not maintainable. In support, he places reliance on the decision of the Ho'ble Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi -vs- State of Karnataka and another reported in ILR 2018 Kar. 1352.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submits that the subject land was granted to 5 the father of the respondent No.3 who belonged to Scheduled Caste community and as such the provision of PTCL Act are applicable and the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner was in contravention of Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act. Hence, the impugned order passed by the respondents No.1 and 2 does not warrant any interference and sought for dismissal of the petition.
7. I have examined the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties.
8. Perusal of the order sheet dated 4.2.2013 in the proceedings before the respondent No.1 indicates that the respondent No.3 argued that the subject land was granted land and the records are available with him. However, the respondent No.3 has not produced the original/photocopy of the grant order before the respondent No.1 to substantiate his claim that the subject land was granted land as defined under Section 3(b) of the PTCL Act.
9. Even before this Court also, the respondent No.3 has not produced any material to substantiate his claim that the 6 subject land was a granted land and in the absence of any material that the subject land was a granted land, the impugned order passed by the respondents No.1 and 2 is one without authority of law. The alleged original grant was made in the year 1973 and the father of the respondent No.3 executed the registered sale deed dated 25.05.2000 in favour of the petitioner and the application was filed by the respondent No.3 in the year 2010 after inordinate delay of 10 years without offering any plausible explanation.
10. The land in question was conveyed to the petitioner by registered sale deed dated 25.05.2000 and the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records. The respondent no.3 after a period of 30 years, initiated proceedings under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. The Hon'ble Apex court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra) while dealing with provisions of the Act has 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. It has been held that the provisions of the statute 7 even in the absence of any period of limitation must be invoked within reasonable time and the period of delay of 25 years in initiation of proceeding has been held to be unreasonable.
11. In the instant case, the proceeding has been initiated after a lapse of 30 years after the Act came into force and cannot be said to be initiated within reasonable time especially in the absence of any explanation in this regard. Thus, it is held that the proceeding for restoration of the land in question have not been initiated within a reasonable time.
12. In view of the above, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 25.10.2013 passed by the respondent No.1 at Annexure-A and order dated 8.6.2012 passed by the respondent No.2 at Annexure-B are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE HR