Karnataka High Court
Smt Mangamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 January, 2020
Author: H T Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
W.P.No.50446 OF 2012(SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Mangamma,
W/o Late Galappa,
Since dead by her LRs.
1(a) Shivakumar,
S/o late. Galappa,
Aged about 28 years.
1(b) Smt. Poornima,
D/o Late. Galappa,
Aged about 28 years.
2. Smt. Venkatamma,
W/o Late Malleshappa,
Aged about 50 years.
3. Smt. Parvathamma,
D/o Late Mallaiah,
Aged about 48 years.
4. Sri. M.Mahadevaiah,
S/o Late Mallaiah,
Aged about 42 years.
5. Sri. Shivanna,
S/o Late Mallaiah,
Aged about 40 years
2
6. Smt. Muthamma,
D/o Late Mallaiah,
Aged about 40 years.
All are residents of
Saluhunse Village,
Uttarahalli Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore-560 056. ... Petitioners
(By Sri.G.Papi Reddy, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its
Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
M.S.Building, Vidhana Veedhi,
Bangalore-560 001.
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore District,
District Office Compound,
Bangalore-560 009.
3. The Assistant Commissioner,
Bangalore South Sub-Division,
Revenue Bhavana,
Kempegowda Road,
Bangalore-560 009.
4. Sri. Munibyrappa,
S/o R Shamanna,
Aged about 60 years,
Residing at No.316,
Old S.B.M. Road,
Sarakki Village,
Bangalore-560 085. ... Respondents
3
(By Smt. Shilpa S. Gogi, HCGP. for R1 to R3:
Sri.A.S.Ponnanna, Senior Counsel for
Sri. Nishanth A.V., Advocate for R4.)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order of the
Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub-Division,
Bangalore R3, dated:25.10.2006, vide Annexure-E and the
impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, dated:
02.08.2012, R2, herein vide Annexure-F, by issue of writ of
certiorari to restore the land in question to the petitioners and to
pass such other orders.
This writ petition, coming on for hearing, this day, the
Court, made the following:
ORDER
This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.10.2006 by the third respondent vide Annexure-E and the order dated 02.08.2012 passed by the second respondent vide Annexure-F, whereby the Deputy Commissioner has rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 5-A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the PTCL Act').
2. The brief facts of the case are that the land bearing Sy.No.46 measuring 2 acres 24 guntas situated at Kaggalipura 4 Village, Uttrahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk was granted to one Mallaiah, S/o.Kenchappa on 14.12.1993 and saguvali chit was issued on 31.07.1995. The said Mallaiah sold the land in favour of respondent No.4 by a registered sale deed dated 11.09.1995 by violating the provisions of Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act. The PTCL Act came into force 01.01.1979. The petitioner filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner for resumption of land under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act in the year 2005. The Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 25.10.2006 has rejected the application on the ground that it is not a granted land and no documents are produced to show that the land has been granted to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the legal representatives of the original grantee have filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5-A of the PTCL Act. The Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 02.08.2012 dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the legal representatives of the original grantee have filed this writ petition.
5
3. Sri G.Papi Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the land in dispute was originally granted to Sri Mallaiah, S/o.Kenchappa in the year 1993 and saguvali chit has been issued on 31.07.1995. The said Mallaiah sold the land in favour of the fourth respondent by a registered sale deed dated 11.09.1995 by violating the provisions of Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act. The alienation has been made without taking any permission as per the provisions of the PTCL Act. The original grantee has filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act in the year 2005 for resumption of the land. Even though he has produced the documents to establish that the land in dispute is a granted land, both the authorities, i.e., the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, without verifying the original records have passed the impugned order. Hence, he sought for allowing the petition.
4. Per contra, Sri A.S.Ponnanna, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.4 has contended that the land in dispute is not a granted land and the original grantee does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The Act itself is 6 not applicable. Secondly, he contended that even assuming that it is a granted land, the application filed by the original grantee under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act in the year 2005 is after a lapse of more than 10 years from the date of the sale. The application itself is not maintainable. In support of his claim, he has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of NINGAPPA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS disposed of on 14.07.2011 in C.A.No.3131/2007 and NEKKANTI RAMALAKSHMI vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in 2018(1) KAR.L.R.J(SC) and also relied on judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1474/2018 disposed of on 03.01.2020. Hence, he sought for dismissing the writ petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers.
6. The case of the petitioners is that land in question measuring 2 acres 24 guntas was originally granted in favour of Mallaiah in the year 1993 and it was sold in favour of the fourth respondent by a registered sale deed dated 11.09.1995. The 7 application for resumption under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act was filed in the year 2005. The Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-E has dismissed the application. The appeal filed by the legal representatives of the original grantee has also been dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner by confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-F on 02.08.2012.
7. Without considering the contentions raised by the parties regarding the nature of the grant and whether the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, in view of the law laid down by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court, the only point for consideration is whether the application filed under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act is within reasonable time? In the case on hand, land was granted by the Special Deputy Commissioner on 14.12.1993 in favour of one Mallaiah. He sold the land on in favour of the fourth respondent herein on 11.09.1995. The original grantee filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act for resumption of land in the year 2005. There is an inordinate delay of 10 years from the 8 date of the sale. The application itself is not maintainable. The Hon'ble Apex Court n the case of NINGAMMA (supra) has opined that even the delay of 9 years in filing the application for restoration of land under Sections 4 and 5 is not maintainable and also subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NEKKANTI (supra), has opined that application for restoration of land has to be filed within a reasonable time. Hence, the application itself is not maintainable.
The writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly it is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cm/-