Karnataka High Court
Sri E Vivek Reddy vs Government Of Karnataka on 5 February, 2020
Author: H T Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
W.P.Nos.8675-8678 OF 2014(SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
1. Sri.E.Vivek Reddy,
Son of Late Padmanabha Reddy,
Aged about 52 years,
Residing at No.87/2,
Richmond Road,
Bangalore-560 025.
2. Smt. Radhika Reddy,
Wife of G.Sharath Reddy,
Aged about 55 years,
Residing at No. Lakeview Farm,
Ramagondanahalli,
Whitefield Road,
Bangalore-560 066.
3. Sri. E.V.Gowtham Reddy,
Son of late Padmanabha Reddy,
Aged about 56 years,
Residing at No.87/2,
Richmond Road,
Bangalore-560 025.
4. Smt. P.Vijayalakshmi,
Wife of Sri. P.Ravikumar Reddy,
Aged about 53 years,
Residing at No.87/2,
Richmond Road,
2
Bangalore-560 025. ... Petitioners
(By Sri.P.D.Surana, Advocate)
AND:
1. Government of Karnataka,
Represented by Hon'ble Secretary
Department of Revenue,
M.S.Building, Bangalore-560 001.
2. The Special Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore Urban District,
Bangalore-560 009.
3. The Assistant Commissioner,
North Sub-Division,
Bangalore-560 009.
4. Sri. Muniyappa,
S/o Kadirappa @ Chikkandahalli Kaderiga,
Kannamangala Village,
Bidarahalli Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk,
Bangalore District-560 067.
Since deceased, represented by
his legal heirs.
4(a) Sri. Muniswamappa,
S/o Kadirappa @ Chikkandahalli Kaderiga,
Major Hindu,
Residing at Kannamangala Village,
Bidarahalli Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk,
Bangalore District-560 067.
4(b) Smt. Muniratana,
D/o Gurappa,
3
Major,Hindu
Residing at Kannamangala Village,
Bidarahalli Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk,
Bangalore District-560 067.
4(c) Sri.Muniyappa,
S/o Gurappa,
Major, Hindu,
Residing at Kannamangala Village,
Bidarahalli Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk,
Bangalore District-560 067.
4(d) Smt.Indramma,
D/o Gurappa,
Major, Hindu,
Residing at Kannamangala Village,
Bidarahalli Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk,
Bangalore District-560 067.
5. Sri. Bachaiah,
Son of late Sonnappa,
Kannamangala Village,
Bidarahalli Hobli,
Bangalore EastTaluk-560 067.
Since deceased represented by
His legal heirs.
5(a) Smt. Nagamma,
Wife of Late. Krishnappa,
Aged about 70 years, Hindu,
Residing at Kannamangala,
Bidarahalli Hobli,
Bangalore East,
Bangalore District-560 067.
4
5(b) Sri. Bachchegowda,
Son of late Krishnappa,
Aged about 25 years,
Residing at Kannamangala Village,
Bidarahalli Hobli,
Bangalore East-560 067.
6. Sri.Beerappa,
Son of Sri.D. Hanumanthappa
Major, Hindu,
Residing at Kannamangala Village,
Bidarahalli Hobli,
Bangalore East -560 067. ... Respondents
(By Smt. Savithramma,HCGP for R1 toR3:
Sri. A.G.Shivanna, Advocate for R4(a),
Sri. P.N.Hegde, Advocate for R4(b & d),
Sri. Govardhan, Advocate for R4(c),
R5(a), R5(b) & R6 are served)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to call for the records in
K.SC.ST.No.101/2008-09 from the file of the R3 and also their
records in SC.ST. Appeal No.A-40/2010-11 from the file of the
R2 set aside the orders passed in K.SC.ST.No.101/2008-09 by
the R3 at Annexure-D and also set-aside the order passed by the
R2 in SC.ST. Appeal No.A-40/2010-11 at Annexure-G.
These writ petitions, coming on for hearing, this day, the
Court, made the following:
ORDER
These writ petitions are directed against the order dated 24.05.2010 passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-D and the order dated 10.10.2011 passed by the 5 Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-G, whereby the authorities have allowed the application filed by the original grantee under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the PTCL Act') and resumed the land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee.
2. The case of the petitioners is that the land bearing Sy.No.174, New Sy.No.192 measuring 2 acres 4 guntas situated at Kannamangala Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk was granted in favour of one Kadirappa on 13.03.1935. The said Kadirappa mortgaged the property in favour of one Bachaiah. Bachaiah sold the property to one Hanumanthappa under the registered sale deed dated 13.08.1959. The legal representatives of Hanumanthappa sold different extent of land in favour of petitioners 1 to 4 under different sale deeds dated 26.01.1994, 20.12.1994, 20.12.1994 and 28.10.1994, respectively. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The legal representatives of the original grantee filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act for resumption of land to 6 the Assistant Commissioner on 11.12.2008. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 24.05.2010 has allowed the application and resumed the land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5-A of the PTCL Act. The Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 10.10.2011 dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners have filed these writ petitions.
3. Sri P.D.Surana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the land was originally granted on 13.03.1935 in favour of one Kadirappa. The said Kadirappa mortgaged the property in favour of one Bachaiah in the year 1941-42. The said Bachaiah inturn sold the property in favour of Hanumanthappa on 13.08.1959. The legal representatives of Hanumanthappa in turn sold the property in favour of the petitioners in the year 1994. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The legal representatives of the original grantee 7 have filed an application for resumption of the land in the year 2008. There is a delay of 29 years in invoking the provisions of the PTCL Act. The application itself is not maintainable. In support of his contention, he has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in 2017 SCC Online SC 1862. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.
4. Per contra, Smt.Savitramma, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have submitted that the land was originally granted in favour of Kadirappa on 13.03.1935 with a condition of non-alienation for ever. However, by violating the condition the original grantee has mortgaged the property in favour of Bachaiah in the year 1941-
42. Since there is violation of provisions of Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act the legal representatives of the original grantee have filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act for resumption of land in the year 2008. The authorities have rightly resumed the land in favour of the legal representatives of the 8 original grantee. Hence, she sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.
5. Sri A.G.Shivanna, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4(a) has contended that that the land was originally granted in favour of Kadirappa on 13.03.1935 with a condition of non-alienation for ever. However, by violating the condition the original grantee has mortgaged the property in favour of Bachaiah in the year 1941-42. Since there is violation of provisions of Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act the legal representatives of the original grantee have filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act for resumption of land in the year 2008. The authorities have rightly resumed the land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee. Secondly, he contended that in respect of delay is concerned, the legal representatives of the original grantee are not aware about the provisions of the Act. Only when they became aware they filed the application. If this Court grants an opportunity to file the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, at the relevant time, they could explain the 9 delay in approaching the authorities. He also relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.596-597/2016 disposed of on 08.07.2019. Hence, he sought for dismissing the writ petitions.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers.
[
7. It is not in dispute that the land in question was originally granted in favour of one Kadirappa under Darkhast Rules in the year 1935. As on the date of grant the condition of non-alienation was for ever. The original grantee mortgaged the property in favour of one Bachaiah in the year 1941-42 contrary to the provisions of Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act. The said Bachaiah in turn sold the property in favour of one Hanumanthapa in the year 1959. The legal representatives of Hanumanthappa sold the property in favour of the petitioners by four different sale deeds in the year 1994. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The application for resumption of the land was filed in the year 2008, after a lapse of 29 years from the date the Act came into force. There is an inordinate delay in 10 filing the application. The Apex Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in 2017 SCC Online SC 1862 has held as hereinbelow:
"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 lands to farmers which were 11 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."
8. The Apex Court in the above judgment has held that application for resumption has to be filed within a reasonable 12 time. In the case on hand, land was granted in the year 1935 and the first transaction has taken place in the year 1941-42. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979 and the application for resumption of land was filed in the year 2008 and there is a delay of 29 years in filing the application from the date the Act came into force, the application itself is not maintainable. The judgment passed by this Court in W.A.Nos.596-597/2016 was stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.25606-25613/2019.
9. In respect of second contention of learned counsel for the respondent No.4(a) that they were not aware of the provisions of the Act and after they became aware, they filed the application, a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.846/2019 disposed of on 19.06.2019 at paragraph No.5 has held as under:
"5. The law on the aspect is very clear. There is no specific limitation prescribed in Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The application has to be filed within a reasonable time. By no stretch of imagination, the application made by the appellants, 13 after a lapse of nearly 32 years from the date on which PTCL Act came into force, can be said to be filed within a reasonable time."
In view of the above, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
10. Accordingly, writ petitions are allowed. The impugned dated 24.05.2010 passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-D and the order dated 10.10.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-G are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cm/-