Karnataka High Court
Sri N Nagesh vs State Of Karnataka on 9 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK.S.KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.44376 OF 2016 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
SRI. N. NAGESH,
SON OF LATE T. NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT INDARASANAHALLI VILLAGE,
HEGGANAHALLI POST,
KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.B.V.GANGI REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESETNED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M S BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
VISVESHWARAIAH TOWER,
PODIUM BLOCK,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION,
DODDABALLAPUR.
4. SRI. P. NARAYANASWAMY,
SON OF LATE PATALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
RESIDING AT THINDLU VILLAGE,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH
(ADDITIONAL) TALUK,
BANGALORE.
5. SMT. SAROJAMMA,
WIFE OF P. NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RESIDING AT THINDLU VILLAGE,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH
(ADDITIONAL) TALUK,
BANGALORE.
6. SRI. K. SUDHAKARA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
DIRECTOR OF M/S SHAPEL INVESTMENT
PRIVATE LIMITED,
REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.198,
END MAIN, 2ND CROSS,
KEB LAYOUT, SANJAYA NAGARA,
BANGALORE - 560 094.
7. SRI. CHANDRU ROYYUR,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
DIRECTOR OF M/S SHAPEL INVESTMENT
PRIVATE LIMITED,
REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.198,
END MAIN, 2ND CROSS,
KEB LAYOUT,
SANJAYA NAGARA,
3
BANGALORE - 560 094.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.V.SESHU, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI.H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN, ADVOCATE FOR
R6 AND R7;
R4 AND R5 - SERVED UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.7.2016
PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE - H; GRANT AN
AD-INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 23.7.2016 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE
- H, BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO CUT
AND REMOVE THE STANDING EUCALPTUS TREES IN
THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.91, MEASURING 2 ACRES,
SITUATED AT INDARASANAHALLI VILLAGE, KUNDANA
HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 23.07.2016 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-H, has filed this writ petition.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that:
The land in Sy.No.7, measuring 19 acres situated at Indarasanahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk 4 was a Government land. There was a grant proceedings initiated and thereby the Tahasildar, Devanahalli had granted different portions of the land in favour of 12 independent persons in terms of Rule 12 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 on upset price. Under the said process of grant proceedings, Sri T.Narayanappa S/o Thimmadasappa was granted a portion of the land to an extent of measuring 02 acres out of Sy.No.7. The Saguvali Chit was issued on 17.10.1978. The land granted in favour of Sri T.Narayanappa was identified as Block No.8 out of Sy.No.7. On the basis of the grant order, Hissa Phodi was effected and the portion of the land granted in favour of Sri T.Narayanappa was assigned as Sy.No.7/P14 and subsequently, the said land was reassigned as Sy.No.91, measuring 02 acres. The father of the petitioner died in the year 1991 leaving behind the petitioner. The petitioner had sold the said land in question by executing a registered sale deed dated 25.06.1994 in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 along with Sri Doddamuniyappa.
Respondent Nos.4 and 5 in turn sold the said land in 5 favour of respondent Nos.6 and 7 under two different registered sale deeds dated 29.03.2005 and 09.01.2006.
The petitioner has filed an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'the PTCL Act') before respondent No.3 alleging that the said sale transaction is in violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act. Respondent No.3 after holding the due enquiry, allowed the application filed by the petitioner. Respondent Nos.6 and 7 being aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.3, preferred an appeal before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 after hearing the parties allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by respondent No.3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.2, has filed this writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and also learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7.
6
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent Nos.4 and 5 by victimizing a fraud got executed a registered sale deed dated 25.06.1994. He submits that the petitioner belongs to SC/ST and the said land is a granted land. The sale deed is executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5, is violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act. He further submits that respondent No.2 has committed an error in allowing the appeal solely on the ground that the application has been filed by the petitioner is beyond reasonable time as no limitation is provided under the Act to file an application. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 submits that the petitioner himself has executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 on 25.06.1994. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 in turn executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent Nos.6 and 7 under a registered sale deed 7 dated 29.03.2005. He further submits that the petitioner has filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act in the year 2007 i.e., after 13 years from the date of execution of the registered sale deed. He further submits that there is an inordinate delay in filing the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. In order to buttress his argument, he places reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs State of Karnataka and another reported in 2018(1) Kar.L.R 5 (SC) and in the case of Vivek M. Hinduja and others vs M. Ashwatha and others reported in 2018(1) Kar.L.R. 176 (SC). Hence, on these grounds, he submits that respondent No.2 was justified in passing the impugned order. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.
6. Per contra, learned HCGP supports the impugned order.
7. Heard and perused the records and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 8
8. The land in Sy.No.7 was granted in favour of Sri T.Narayanappa, who is the father of the petitioner and Saguvali chit was issued on 07.10.1978. The property was transferred in the name of the petitioner and Hissa Phodi was effected by the Survey Authority in respect of Sy.No.7. The land granted in favour of the father of the petitioner was assigned with the number Sy.No.7/P14 and subsequently Sy.No.91. The father of the petitioner died in the year 1991 leaving behind the petitioner as his legal representative. After his demise, the land was transferred in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner had sold the said land in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 under a registered sale deed dated 25.06.1994. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 in turn had sold the said land in favour of respondent Nos.6 and 7 under different sale deeds dated 29.03.2005 and 09.01.2006. On the strength of the aforesaid registered sale deeds, the name of respondent Nos.6 and 7 are entered in the revenue records. In the year 2007, the petitioner has filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act alleging that the sale deed dated 9 25.06.1994 is in violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act. The Assistant Commissioner after holding an enquiry recorded a finding that the sale deed in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 is in violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act and consequently allowed the application filed by the petitioner. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 being aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.3, preferred an appeal before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 allowed the appeal solely on the ground that the application filed by the petitioner is beyond reasonable time. The petitioner has filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act after lapse of 13 years from the date of execution of the registered sale deed. The petitioner has not explained the sufficient cause in filing an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act before respondent No.3 at a belated stage. Thus, the application filed by the petitioner is beyond reasonable period of time.
10
9. In view of the law laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra), it is observed in para No.8 which reads as under:
"8. 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 11 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 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."12
10. In view of the law laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vivek M. Hinduja (supra), it is observed in para No.10 which reads as under:
"We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid observations. It is, however, necessary to add that where limitation is not prescribed, the party ought to approach the competent Court or authority within reasonable time, beyond which no relief can be granted. As decided earlier, this principle would apply even motuactions."
11. The petitioner has failed to explain the delay in filing the application and the application filed by the petitioner is beyond reasonable period of time. On the ground of delay and laches, the application ought to have been rejected by respondent No.3, on the contrary, the application was allowed. Respondent No.2 was justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner on the 13 ground of delay and laches. Hence, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE ssb