Karnataka High Court
Shrikanth Gouda S/O. G. Doddana Gouda vs The Deputy Commissioner on 21 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254
WP No. 83444 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA
WRIT PETITION NO. 83444 OF 2013 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
SHRIKANTH GOUDA
S/O. G. DODDANA GOUDA
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.
1A. SMT. NIRMALA
W/O. SRIKANTHA GOUDA
AGE: 44 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
1B. SHIVALEELA GUTTIGANOOR,
AGE:24 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
Digitally
signed by V
N BADIGER 1C. G. MANJUNATH
Location: S/O. G. SRIKANTHA GOUDA
HIGH
COURT OF AGE: 22 YEARS,
KARNATAKA, OCC: STUDENT,
DHARWAD
BENCH,
DHARWAD
1D. G. PURNIMA
D/O. G. SRIKANTHA GOUDA,
AGE: 20 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
1D. G. PREETI
D/O. G. SRIKANTHA GOUDA,
AGE: 18 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254
WP No. 83444 of 2013
ALL ARE R/O. NO.14
MANNUR SUGUR- 583120.
TQ: SIRAGUPPA,
DIST: BALLARI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BELLARY,
D.C COMPOUND,
BELLARY.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BELLARY,
DIST: BELLARY.
3. PAPANNA URF SANNA RAMAPPA
S/O. HARIJAN MALLAPPA,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. M. SUGUR VILLAGE,
SIRGUPPA TALUK,
DIST: BELLARY.
SRI. BASAPPASHETTY
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
4. SMT. A VENKAMMA
D/O. BASAPPASHETTY
W/O. IRAYYAVSHETTY
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
5. SRI. MAHANTAPPA
S/O. BHARMANNA
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254
WP No. 83444 of 2013
6. VIJAYARAMAKRISHNA RAJU
S/O. BHEEMARAJU
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
RESPONDENT NO.4 TO 6 ARE
R/O. M.SUGUR VILLAGE,
SIRGUPPA TALUK
DIST: BELLARY.
7. THE MANAGER,
T.G.B BANK,
MUDDATTANUR VILLAGE,
SIRGUPPA TALUK,
DIST: BELLARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R1 & R2;
SMT. V. VIDYA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K. RAGHAVENDRA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3;
SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R6;
NOTICE TO R4, R5, AND R7 IS SERVED)
-------
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT QUASHING THE
ORDER DATED 18/09/2013 IN P.T.C.L./APPEAL/46/2008-09
PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT CONFIRMING THE ORDER
DATED 28.06.2008 IN APPLICATION NO. PTCL/21/2004-05
PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, PRODUCED AS PER
ANNEXURE - A AND B RESPECTIVELY, TO MEET THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254
WP No. 83444 of 2013
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 28/06/2008 passed by respondent No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner, produced as per Annexure-B and the order dated 18/09/2013 passed by respondent No.1 - the Deputy Commissioner, produced as per Annexure-A, confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner.
2. Heard Sri.Chetan Munnoli, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. P. N. Hatti, learned HCGP for respondents No.1 and 2, Sri.V. Vidya, learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.3 and Sri.Girish A. Yadawad, learned counsel for respondent No.6. Perused the materials on record.
3. The case of petitioners is that; -5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254 WP No. 83444 of 2013 3.1. As per Annexure-D, the land measuring 6.83 acres, situated at M.Sugur Village, Siruguppa Taluk, Ballari District, was granted in favor of the father of respondent No.3, by name Mallappa. However, the said Harijan Mallappa sold the land to three different persons, under sale deeds dated 11/05/1970. Those three persons have, in turn, sold the said 6.83 acres of land in favour of the petitioner, under a registered sale deed dated 11/08/1987. 3.2. It was only on 08/10/2004, that respondent No.3 filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PTCL Act', for short), seeking resumption of the land.
3.3. The said application was considered by the Assistant Commissioner, who allowed the same -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254 WP No. 83444 of 2013 to set aside the sale deeds executed by Mallappa and the subsequent sale deeds. When this order of the Assistant Commissioner was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner by the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner confirmed the said order by dismissing the Revision. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that;
4.1. The grant order, the copy of which is produced as per Annexure-D, does not specify that the land was granted to the father of respondent No.3, simply because he belonged to the Scheduled Caste, it cannot be concluded that the land was granted to him as he belongs to such category.
4.2. Secondly, it is his contention that, Annexure-D is in Telugu language and in a printed format, -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254 WP No. 83444 of 2013 with only the last condition restricting alienation for a period of 15 years, being subsequently overwritten in Kannada. However, no explanation is provided as to who wrote it and when. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when similar formats of grants are taken into consideration, none of such grants contain a condition similar to that found in the present Annexure-D. 4.3. Thirdly, it is his contention that, there is inordinate delay and laches on the part of respondent No.3 in filing the application under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. The grant was made on 31/05/1957, and the sale deeds were executed on 11/05/1970, but respondent No.3 has filed the application under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act on 08/10/2004, i.e., after a lapse of about 35 years.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254 WP No. 83444 of 2013 4.4. He places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and Another1, to contend that, inordinate delay and laches defeats the right, if any, of respondent No.3. He also relies on a similar decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vivek M. Hinduja and Others v. Ashwatha and Others2.
4.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Smt.Gouramma alias Gangamma v. Deputy Commissioner, Haveri District3, and Smt. Manjula and Others v. Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District4, in support of his contention. In both cases, the Division Benches of this Court, following the 1 (2020) 14 SCC 232 2 (2020) 14 SCC 228 3 W.A.No.100101 of 2024 dated 29.07.2024 4 W.P.No.210 of 2023 dated 25.11.2024 -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254 WP No. 83444 of 2013 dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra), held that, inordinate delay and laches on the part of the applicants disentitle them from seeking resumption of the land.
4.6. In view of the above, he prays for allowing the petition by setting aside the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, as the same are passed ignoring the precedence set up by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
4.7. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that, during the pendency of the writ petition, on 21/10/2013, possession of the land was handed over to respondent No.3, and the same is liable to be restored in favor of the petitioner in the interest of justice. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the petition.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254 WP No. 83444 of 2013
5. Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondent-State, submits that, the grant was in favor of a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste, and since the sale was within 15 years of the grant, without obtaining permission for alienation of the property, the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner were right in passing the impugned orders.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that;
6.1. Section 4 of SC/ST Act starts with a non-
obstinate clause that, any sale either before or after commencement of the Act, in contravention of the terms of the grant of such land shall be null and void, and no right title or interest in such land shall be conveyed or deemed to have conveyed by such transfer. When there is clear violation of the grant order produced as per Annexure-D, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner were right in passing the impugned order.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254 WP No. 83444 of 2013 6.2. Learned counsel contends that the Deputy Commissioner has specifically recorded his finding regarding his satisfaction that the original grant order had the condition restricting to alienation for a period of 15 years, and it was a grant in favour of a person belonging to scheduled caste. In view of a specific finding given by the Deputy Commissioner, the said order cannot be found fault with. 6.3. Learned counsel further submits that, in view of specific bar for alienation of the land granted before or after the commencement of the Act, such alienation is held to be null and void, and under such circumstances any number of sale deeds relied on by the petitioner will not enure to his benefit. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
6.4. Learned counsel also submitted that, the possession of the land was already handed over
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254 WP No. 83444 of 2013 to respondent No.3 during 2013, and for a period of 12 years, he is in enjoyment of the property and therefore at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled for the possession of the property. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
7. After hearing both the sides and perusing the materials on record, it is found that Annexure-D, the printed format in Telugu language was issued in favour of the father of respondent No.3, granting the disputed land in his favour on 31.5.1957. According to the petitioner, the only condition written at the end of the grant order in Kannada language is subsequent insertion. Whereas, it is the contention of respondent No.3 that it was there even when the grant order was issued. Of course, it is a disputed fact for which no finding could be recorded by this Court. However, the Deputy Commissioner records his finding that such condition was there at the time
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254 WP No. 83444 of 2013 when the grant order was issued. Moreover, on perusal of Annexure-D, it is found that the format is in Telugu language, but all other details are filled in Kannada.
8. Admittedly, the grantee-Mallappa, the father of respondent No.3 sold the properties under 3 different sale deeds on 11.05.1970. No materials are placed before the Court as to when Mallappa died. But the fact remains that the original grantee never filed an application for resumption of the land during his life time. Respondent No.3 being the son of the original grantee, filed the application under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTLC Act, with the Assistant Commissioner only on 05.10.2004 i.e. after about 34 years of executing the sale deeds by his father. There is absolutely no reason assigned by the applicant as to why there was such a long delay in filing the application under Sections 4 and 5 of SC/ST PTCL Act.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254 WP No. 83444 of 2013
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vivek M. Hinduja (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, referring to Section 4 of the SC/ST PTCL Act in the light of the observations made by it in it's decision in Pune Municipal Corporation Vs. State of Maharashtra5, held that, when period of limitation is not prescribed, the party must approach the competent court or authority within a reasonable time, beyond which no relief can be granted.
10. In Nekkanti Ram Lakshmi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court, again referring to Sections 4 and 5 of the SC/ST PTCL Act held in paras 7 and 8 which reads as under:
"7. However, the applicant had not produced the original grant, and, therefore, it was not possible for the purpose to come to a conclusion that the transfer was in breach of the non-alienation period. We, however, find that one of the points raised on behalf of the appellant deserves acceptance. That point is 5 2007 (5) SCC 211
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254 WP No. 83444 of 2013 that the application for restoration of the land was made by the heir of Kriyappa after unreasonably long period i.e. 25 years from when the Act came into force. Section 4 of the Act itself has a ubiquitous effect in it, annulling the transfer of granted land "made either before or after the commencement of the Act" as null and void. Thus, Act does not specify now much before the commencement of the Act. Thus on a plain and critical reading of the Act, it seems that it covers proceedings made in time before the Act was enacted. However, we are not called upon to deal with the reasonableness of this provision and we do not propose to say anything on this. The validity of the Act has been upheld by a judgment of this Court in Manchegowda v. State of Karnataka.
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 Chhedi Lal Yadav v. Hari Kishore Yadav and also in Ningappa v. Commr. 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 su motu, must be taken within a reasonable time. That action arose under the
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254 WP No. 83444 of 2013 provisions of a similar Act which provided for restoration of certain lands to farmers which were sold for arrears of rent or from which they were ejected for arrears of land from 01.01.1939 to 31.12.1950. This relief was granted to the farmers due to flood in 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 v. Commr., Maddurappa v. State of Karnataka and G. Maregouda."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. The Division Bench of this Court in Smt.Gouramma @ Gangamma (supra) as well as in Smt. M. Manjula (supra) placing reliance on Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra) categorically held that, after long lapse of several years, the application under Sections 4 and 5 for restitution or resumption of the land by the grantee or the person claiming under the grantee cannot be entertained. In M.Manjula
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254 WP No. 83444 of 2013 (supra), the Division Bench headed by Hon'ble The Chief Justice, referred to the amendment made to the Karnataka SC/ST PTCL Act, notified in Gazette Notification dated 27th July 2023 to insert Sub- clauses (c) & (d), and observed that the validity of the said amendment is under challenge in W.P.No.27496 of 2023. It also referred to the decision of Division Bench in Smt. Gouramma @ Gangamma (supra) and also referred to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India V. N. Murugesan6, to hold that a person guilty of delay and laches may not be entitled for the indulgence for grant of equitable relief. When the Hon'ble Apex Court repeatedly held that the delay and laches defeats the remedy and the same is followed by this Court in various decisions, I do not find any reason to disagree with the same and to form a different opinion. In the present case admittedly, there is 6 2022 (2) SCC 25
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254 WP No. 83444 of 2013 delay of about 34 long years which is never explained. Hence, I am of the opinion that, the very fact that the original grantee has not opted for resumption of the land during his lifetime and respondent No.3 has filed such an application after lapse of 34 long years, he is not entitled for any relief. These facts are ignored by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, while passing the impugned orders. Hence, I am of the opinion that both these orders are liable to be quashed.
12. It is an admitted fact that, during the pendency of this writ petition, the possession of the lands were handed over to respondent No.3. It is contended by the learned counsel for respondent No.3 that respondent No.3 is enjoying the benefit of the land for over 12 years and therefore the same may not be disturbed. But the fact remains that the petitioner who purchased the property by paying the valuable
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254 WP No. 83444 of 2013 consideration during 1987, was in possession of the land till 2013 i.e. for a period of 26 long years. The same cannot be ignored by this Court. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the land is required to be restored to the possession of the petitioners in the interest of justice. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 28.06.2008 in application-PTCL/21/2004-05 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-B and order dated 18.09.2013 in PTCL/Appeal/46/2008-09 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-A, are set aside.
(iii) Consequently, the application filed by respondent No.3 under Sections 4 and 5 of SC/ST PTCL Act, is hereby rejected.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254 WP No. 83444 of 2013
(iv) Respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner, Bellary District, is directed to restore the land to the possession of the petitioner and to restore the name of the petitioner in the revenue records, within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/-
(M.G.UMA) JUDGE gab - upto para 5 MKM - para 6 to end CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10