Karnataka High Court
Sri Rudrappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 March, 2020
Author: H T Narendra Prasad
Bench: H. T. Narendra Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION No.467 OF 2014 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
Sri. Rudrappa,
S/o Basappa,
Aged about 72 years,
Residing at Kabbala Village,
Basavapatna Hobli,
Channagiri Taluk,
Davanagere District.
...Petitioner
(By Sri.P.M.Siddamallappa, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its
Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
M.S.Building,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
Davanagere District,
Davanagere.
3. The Assistant Commissioner,
Davanagere Sub-Division,
Davanagere.
2
4. The Tahsildar,
Davanagere Taluk,
Davanagere.
5. Smt.Gowribai,
W/o late Nagya Naika,
Aged about 72 years,
Residing at Kabbala Village,
Basavapatna Hobli,
Davanagere Taluk,
Davanagere District.
6. Sri.Shankara Naika,
S/o Late Nagya Naika,
Aged about 55 years,
Residing at Kabbala Village,
Basavapatna Hobli,
Davanagere Taluk,
Davanagere District.
...Respondents
(By Smt.Savithramma, HCGP for R1 to R4;
Sri. B.Roopesh, Advocate for R5 and R6)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the orders
Dated.8.11.2010 passed in Case No.PTCL:75/09-10 by the
Assistant Commissioner, Davanagere Sub-Division, Davanagere
vide Annexure - D and order Dated.9.12.2013 passed in Case
No.PTCL/CR.05/2011-12 by the Deputy Commissioner,
Davanagere vide Annexure - E and etc.,
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in 'B'
Group, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
This writ petition is directed against the order dated 08.11.2010 passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide 3 Annexure-D and order dated 09.12.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-E, whereby the authorities have allowed the application and resumed the land in favour of legal representatives of original grantee under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).
2. The case of the petitioner is that land bearing Sy. No.41/3 measuring 01 acre 10 guntas situated at Kabbala Village, Basavapatna Hobli, Channagiri Taluk Davanagere District was originally granted in favour of Nagya Naika under Darkasth Rules in the year 1953-54 and Saguvali Chiti was issued on 30.06.1965 with a condition not to alienate the property for a period of 15 years. Out of 01 acre 10 guntas, the original grantee has sold 20 guntas of land in favour of petitioner under a registered Sale Deed dated 20.08.1974. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The original grantee has 4 filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act for resumption of land before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2001 and case has been registered as PTCL CR.29/2001-2002. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 20.02.2002 has allowed the application and resumed the land in favour of legal representatives of original grantee. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5A of the Act. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner has filed a petition before this Court in W.P. No.29814/2002 challenging the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 20.02.2002. This Court, by order dated 08.08.2002 had disposed of the petition with the following directions:
"4. Writ Petition is disposed of in the following terms:-
(1) The order of the Asst. Commissioner dated 20.2.2002 in Case No.PTCL/CNG.29/2001-2002 on the file of the Asst. Commissioner at Annexure-B is stayed 5 pending disposal of the Appeal before the Deputy Commissioner and;
(2) The Deputy Commissioner is directed to dispose of the Appeal within three months from today."
Thereafter on 13.11.2002, the Deputy Commissioner has passed an order on the appeal filed by the petitioner and dismissed the appeal confirming the order dated 20.02.2002 passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed another petition before this Court in W.P. No.47539/2002. This Court, by order dated 15.09.2008 has allowed the petition and remitted the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh disposal. After remand of the matter, the Assistant Commissioner has passed the impugned order dated 08.11.2010 vide Annexure-D and resumed the land in favour of legal representatives of original grantee. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner has filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5A of the Act. The 6 Deputy Commissioner by order dated 09.12.2013 has dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Sri. P.M. Siddamallappa, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that out of 01 acre 10 guntas of the above said land, the original grantee has sold 20 guntas of land in favour of petitioner under a registered Sale Deed dated 20.08.1974. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The original grantee has filed an application for resumption of land in the year 2001. There is a delay of 21 years in filing the application for resumption of land. The application itself is not maintainable. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi -v- State of Karnataka and Another reported in 2018 (1) Kar. LR 5 (SC) and prays for allowing the petition. 7
4. Per contra, Smt. Savithramma, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri. B. Roopesh, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6 contended that land was granted in favour of Nagya Naika under Darkasth Rules in the year 1953-54 and Saguvali Chiti was issued on 30.06.1965 with a condition not to alienate the property for a period of 15 years. By violating the condition, the original grantee has sold the land in favour of petitioner on 20.08.1974. Therefore, the authorities have rightly allowed the application and resumed the land in favour of legal representatives of original grantee. Hence, they pray for dismissal of the petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers.
6. Land bearing Sy. No.41/2 measuring 01 acre 10 guntas 01 acre 10 guntas situated at Kabbala Village, Basavapatna Hobli, Channagiri Taluk Davanagere District 8 was originally granted in favour of Nagya Naika under Darkasth Rules in the year 1953-54 and Saguvali Chiti has been issued on 30.06.1965 with a condition not to alienate the property for a period of 15 years. The original grantee by violating the condition of Land Grant Rules has sold the land in favour of petitioner on 20.08.1974. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. Section 4(1) of the Act reads as under:-
"4. Prohibition of transfer of granted lands.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything in any law, agreement, contract or instrument, any transfer of granted land made either before or after the commencement of this Act, in contravention of the terms of the grant of such land or the law providing for such grant, or sub-section (2) shall be null and void and no right, title or interest in such land shall be conveyed or be deemed ever to have conveyed by such transfer."
7. It is very clear from the above provision of Section that if any transfer of granted land is alienated, which is contrary to the Land Grant Rules, will be null and 9 void. The original grantee has filed an application under Section 5 (1) of the Act for resumption of the land on the ground that sale has become null and void. But, he has filed the application in the year 2001 i.e., after lapse of 21 years from the date of the Act came into force. There is an inordinate delay in filing the application and same is not maintainable. 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 10 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 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 11 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."
8. It is very clear from the above judgment of the Apex Court that the application for resumption of the land has to be filed within a reasonable time. In the case on hand, the land was granted in favour of Nagya Naik in the year 1953-54 and Saguvali Chiti has been issued on 30.06.1965 with a condition not to alienate the property for a period of 15 years. The original grantee has sold the land in favour of petitioner on 20.08.1974. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The application for resumption of land has been filed in the year 2001. There is an inordinate delay of 21 years from the date of the Act came into force. Hence, the application itself is not maintainable. 12
9. In view of the above, the impugned orders at Annexures-D and E are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 08.11.2010 passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-D and order dated 09.12.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-E are quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE MBM