Karnataka High Court
Harijana Dodda Durgappa S/O. ... vs The Deputy Commissioner on 14 February, 2024
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3486
WP No. 102011 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 102011 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
HARIJANA DODDA DURGAPPA
S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA
AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MARIYAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
TQ. HOSAPETE, DIST. BALLARI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHARNAPPA S KOLIWAD., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE
BALLARI-583101
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DISTRICT BALLARI-583101
3. THE DEPUTY TAHASHILDAR NADA OFFICE
MARIYAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
TQ. HOSAPETE,
DIST. BALLARI-583101
Digitally signed by B K
MAHENDRAKUMAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 4. HARIJANA DURGAPPA S/O. MALLAMMA
KARNATAKA AGE.62 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MARIYAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
TQ. HOSAPETE,
DIST. BALLARI-583101
5. HARIJANA SANNA DURGAPPA
S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA
AGE:58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MARIYAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
TQ. HOSAPETE, DIST. BALLARI-583101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
R4 AND R5 SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3486
WP No. 102011 of 2021
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT SETTING ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 30.05.2011 IN APPEAL BEARING
NO.ROR/APL/109+147/09-10 BEFORE THE ASSISTANT PASSED IN
REV. APPEAL NO.49/2013-14, BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BALLARI
AS PER ANNEXURE-C.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner and respondent No.5 jointly purchased the land bearing Sy.No.56/A2, measuring 1 acre, 34 guntas of Danayakanakere Village of Hospete through a registered sale deed dated 13.06.2005. Such being the case, respondent No.4 filed an application for restoration and resumption of this subject land as stated under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the SC/ST PTCL Act') on 03.05.2011. Respondent No.2 by the impugned order allowed the application, resumed and restored the subject land to respondent No.4 and the challenge to the said order was confirmed by respondent No.1 in the appeal filed by the petitioner herein.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the first transaction between the father of respondent No.4 and one Peersab took place on 05.07.1963, by which, the leasehold rights were transferred to Peersab, and in the said lease deed, a clause was provided that the Peersab shall -3- NC: 2024:KHC-D:3486 WP No. 102011 of 2021 acquire the right of absolute ownership, in the event, the father of respondent No.4 fails to pay or return the mortgage amount. The father of the Respondent No.4 having not returned the lease amount, the Peersab acquired absolute ownership, and thereafter he conveyed the subject property in favour of various persons and ultimately this land was conveyed to the petitioner. He further submits that there is no material to substantiate that the subject land is a granted land as defined under Section 3(b) of the SC/ST PTCL Act and in the absence of the same the application was not maintainable.
3. Respondent No.4 though served with notice has not chosen to appear in person or through his counsel.
4. Learned HCGP for the State submits that the material produced before respondent No.2 established that the subject land is a granted land, and the land was conveyed without obtaining prior permission as stated under Section 4(1) of the SC/ST PTCL Act. Therefore, the impugned order passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 are in conformity with the provisions of SC/ST PTCL Act and the same does not warrant any interference.
5. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
6. The first sale transaction took place on 05.07.1963 and the purchaser of the land mortgaged the property in favour -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:3486 WP No. 102011 of 2021 of Rangappa who in turn conveyed the subject land in favour of the petitioner by executing a registered sale deed dated 13.06.2005.
7. Admittedly, the order passed by respondent No.1 does not indicate that respondent No.4 had not placed any material to substantiate that the subject land is a granted land as defined at Section 3(b) of the SC/ST PTCL Act, and the impugned order was passed solely on the entry made in the record of right stating that the subject land is a special patta land, and the said entry in no way establishes that the subject land is a granted land as defined under Section 3(b) of the SC/ST PTCL Act.
8. The first of the transactions took place in the year 1963, and the application for restoration under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was filed in the year 2011 after an inordinate delay without offering any plausible explanation for the delay.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi -vs- State of Karnataka and another reported in ILR 2018 Kar. 1352 while dealing with provisions of the Act has held that, Section 5 of the Act neither provides for any period within which an application under the Act has to be made nor prescribes the time within which suo motu action may be initiated. It has been held that the provisions of the statute even in the absence of any period of limitation must be invoked -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:3486 WP No. 102011 of 2021 within reasonable time and the period of delay of 25 years in initiation of proceedings has been held to be unreasonable.
10. In view of the preceding analysis, the application filed after an inordinate delay was not maintainable, and also in the absence of any material that the subject land is a granted land as defined under Section 3(b), the impugned orders are not sustainable in law. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 03.05.2011 passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-B and the order dated 10.08.2020 passed by respondent No.1 at Annexure-C are hereby quashed, and the application filed by respondent No.4 for restoration of the subject land is dismissed as not maintainable.
Sd/-
JUDGE SSP CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28