Karnataka High Court
Sri K T Manjunath vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 March, 2022
Bench: Alok Aradhe, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT APPEAL NO.485/2021
BETWEEN:
1. SRI K.T.MANJUNATH
S/O K.N.THIPPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
2. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O SHANKARANARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
3. SRI R.N.MANJUNATHA
S/O N.NARASIMHAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
4. SRI G.N.PRABHAKARA
S/O D.V.NARAYANASHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
5. SRI N.A.SUDHAKAR
S/O N.A.ANANTHA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
6. SRI C.H.SUNIL KUMAR
S/O C.H.RADHAKRISHNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
APPELLANTS ARE R/AT
KARNATAKA ENTERPRISES,
B.H.ROAD, GOWRIBIDANUR TOWN.
CHIKKABALLAPUR-562101. ... APPELLANTS
2
(BY SOMASHEKHARAIAH.R.P., ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING,
BENGALURU 560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT,
CHIKKABALLAPUR-562101.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHIKKABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION,
CHIKKABALLAPUR,
CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DIST.-562101.
4. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA
W/O.LATE. R. SEETHAPATHI,
5. SRI. R. JAGANNATH
S/O. LATE. RANGASWAMY,
6. SMT. GEETHAMMA
W/O. R. SHIVAPPA,
7. SMT. RATHNAMMA
W/O. LATE R. DAYANANDA,
RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 7 ARE MAJOR
R/AT HOSAPETE,
GOWRIBIDANUR TOWN,
CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DIST.562101. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. VANI.H., AGA, FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI, T.YUGANDHAR, ADV. FOR R4 TO R7)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN
W.P.NO.6515/2019 (SC/ST) DATED 12.03.2021.
3
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra-court appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 12th March 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.6515/2019 (SC/ST).
2. The parties are referred to by their rankings assigned to them in the writ petition.
3. Brief facts of the case that would be relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are:
The land bearing Sy.No.119, new No.304 measuring 1 acre 18 guntas situated at Madanahalli Village, Gowribidanur, Kolar District (for short "the land in question") was granted in favour of one M.Rangaswamy on 24.04.1964 and the said Rangaswamy sold the granted land in favour of one K.V.Krishnappa on 17.09.1968.
Subsequently, said K.V.Krishnappa got the land converted from agricultural purpose to non-agricultural purpose on 26.06.1991 and after his death, the wife and children of K.V.Krishnappa under a registered sale deed dated 4 12.06.1996 sold the land in question in favour of the petitioners.
4. When the matter stood thus, the son of the original grantee R.Dayananda filed an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short "PTCL Act") in the year 2004 for restoration of the land in question on the ground that the transaction was hit by Section 4 of the PTCL Act and accordingly sought restoration of the land in question. The Assistant Commissioner vide his order dated 04.07.2005 allowed the said application and the same was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner in the appeal filed by the petitioners vide his order dated 07.05.2014. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners, who are the purchasers of the land in question from K.V.Krishnappa, filed W.P.No.6515/2019 before this court and the learned Single Judge of this court vide the order impugned herein has dismissed the same and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are in appeal.
5
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the application filed for restoration in the year 2004 ought not have been entertained by the competent authorities as the same was filed beyond reasonable period. He also submits that having regard to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi -vs- State of Karnataka & Another reported in (2020)14 SCC 232 and in the case of Vivek M.Hinduja -vs- M.Aswatha reported in (2019)1 Kant LJ 819 SC, the learned Single Judge of this court ought to have allowed the writ petition. He submits that, compared to the delay of 25 years in filing the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act for restoration of the land in question, the delay of four years in filing the writ petition is very meager and therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches.
6. The respondents have argued in support of the impugned order and have prayed to dismiss the appeal. 6
7. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments addressed on both sides and also perused the material available on record.
8. The undisputed facts of the case are that the land in question was granted to M.Rangaswamy on 24.04.1964 and during his life time, he had sold the same in favour of K.V.Krishnappa on 17.09.1968. Subsequently, K.V.Krishnappa got the land in question converted from agricultural purpose to non-agricultural purpose on 26.06.1991 and after his death, his wife and children sold the land in favour of the petitioners herein. The application for restoration has been filed by the son of original grantee in the year 2004, which was almost after 25 years from the date the PTCL Act came into force. The PTCL Act has come into force with effect from 01.01.1979.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra) and in the case of Vivek M.Hinduja (supra), has held that any act and action for restoration of the land as provided under Section 5 of the PTCL Act is required to be taken within a 7 reasonable period and if the application filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act is beyond reasonable period, the competent authorities should not entertain the same. In the case of Ningappa -vs- Deputy Commissioner and Others reported in (2020) 14 SCC 236, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that an application filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act with a delay of 9 years was beyond the reasonable period. In the case on hand, admittedly, the delay is more than 25 years.
10. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the delay caused in filing the writ petition is of 4 years and compared to the delay caused in filing the application for restoration, the same is negligible and therefore, in our considered view, the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches.
11. The petitioners have offered an explanation to the delay of 4 years caused in filing the writ petition and they have stated that after disposal of the appeal by the Deputy Commissioner, they did not have any intimation 8 about the same from the office of the Deputy Commissioner and it is only after coming to know about the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, they had taken action to file the writ petition. Whereas, the son of the original grantee, who had filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act seeking restoration of the land in question, had not offered any explanation for the inordinate delay of 25 years caused in filing the said application.
12. In the background of the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which are referred to hereinabove, the application filed by the legal representative of the original grantee under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, was definitely beyond a reasonable period and the authorities concerned should not have entertained the said application filed after a delay of 25 years. The learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and erred in dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioners on the ground of delay and laches. 9
13. Under the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court is unsustainable. Accordingly, the following order:
The writ appeal is allowed. The order dated 12th March 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.6515/2019 (SC/ST) is set aside. Consequently, W.P.No.6515/2019 is allowed and the order dated 04.07.2005 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the order dated 07.05.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner are quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE KNM/-