Karnataka High Court
Sri Mayappa vs Sri Karappan Gownder on 17 January, 2020
Bench: Chief Justice, Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT APPEAL No.6 OF 2020 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
SRI MAYAPPA
S/O LATE. CHELUVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
H. MATAKERE VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
H.D. KOTE TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 125. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI NANJUNDA SWAMY N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI KARAPPAN GOWNDER
S/O LATE. VEERAPPA GOWNDER
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
2. SRI K. VIJAYA KRISHNA
S/O KARAPPAN GOWNDER
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
BOTH APPELLANTS ARE
R/AT KODALLIMARA VILLAGE
SIDDARAMANAHUNDI
KOLAGALA POST
HAMPAPURA HOBLI
H.D. KOTE TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 125.
-2-
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSURU DISTRICT
MYSURU - 570 001.
5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HUNSUR SUB-DIVISION
HUNSUR
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 105.
6. SRI MAHADEVA @ MADEGOWDA
S/O LATE BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
7. Smt. PADMAMMA
D/O LATE. BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
No.6 & 7 ARE LRs OF
LATE THIMMAMMA, W/O. MARIGOWDA
& SRI BASAPPA, S/O APPAJGOWDA
BOTH ARE
R/AT. YERAHALLI RAGI MILL HOUSE
KASABA HOBLI, H.D. KOTE TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 125.
8. SRI NAZIR AHMED
S/O LATE MOHAMMED HUSSAIN
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
9. SRI BASHIR AHMED
S/O LATE MOHAMMED HUSSAIN
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
10. SRI A.J. AHMED
S/O LATE MOHAMMED HUSSAIN
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
-3-
11. SRI IMTIYAZ
S/O LATE MOHAMMED HUSSAIN
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
12. SRI. MUSTAZ AHMED
S/O LATE. MOHAMMED HUSSAIN
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
No.8 TO 12 ARE
R/AT JONI GIRI BEEDI
H.D. KOTE TOWN
H.D. KOTE TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 125.
13. SRI TAJMAL HUSSAIN H.A.,
S/O LATE. ABDUL HAZEEZ
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
14. SRI MUZAMAL HUSSAIN
S/O LATE. ABDUL HAZEEZ
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
15. SRI H.D. AFZAL HUSSAIN
S/O LATE ABDUL HAZEEZ
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
16. SRI SUHAIL TANVEER H.H.,
S/O LATE. ABDUL HAZEEZ
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
No. 12 TO 15 ARE LRs OF LATE. ABDUL HAZEEZ
S/O LATE. MOHAMMED KHASIM
ALL ARE R/AT : JONIGIRI STREET
NEAR DODDAMASEEDI
H.D. KOTE TOWN
H.D. KOTE TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 125. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A.G. SRIDHAR FOR C/R2 (CP.No. 2617/19
SRI Y.H. VIJAYAKUMAR AGA FOR R3 TO R5)
---
-4-
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO a) SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08/11/2019 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
W.P.No.13628/2018 (SC-ST), BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE
APPEAL AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR J, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed against the order dated 8th November 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.13628/2018.
2. The land bearing Sy.No.52/12 (new Sy.No.360) measuring 4.00 acres situated at H D Kote, Mysuru District was granted in favour of Cheluvaiah by order dated 13th June 1953. The appellant is the son of Cheluvaiah. During his life time, Cheluvaiah sold a portion of granted land measuring 2.00 acres in favour of Thimmamma, grand mother of respondents No.6 and 7 by registered sale deed dated 27th April 1964. Subsequently, he sold the remaining portion of the granted land in favour of father of respondent Nos.8 to -5- 12 by registered sale deed dated 24th April 1967. These two purchasers in turn sold the granted land in favour of respondents No.1 and 2 herein by sale deeds dated 30th May 1983 and 3rd January 1990 respectively.
3. After coming into force of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short `PTCL Act'), the appellant filed an application with the respondent No.5 - Assistant Commissioner under Section 5 of the said PTCL Act for resumption and restitution of the granted land in his favour. The respondent No.5 - Assistant Commissioner by order dated 14th December 2011 dismissed the application holding that the purchasers have perfected their title by way of adverse possession.
4. The Appellant challenged the order passed by the respondent No.5 - Assistant Commissioner before the respondent No.4 - Deputy Commissioner by filing an appeal under Section 5-A of the PTCL Act. -6- The respondent No.4 - Deputy Commissioner after hearing the parties passed an order dated 6th March 2018 restoring the granted land in favour of the appellant after holding that the transfer of the granted land by the deceased father of appellant in favour of purchasers is null and void as provided in Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act.
5. The respondents No.1 and 2 herein challenged the order dated 6th March 2018 passed by the respondent No.4 - Deputy Commissioner in WP No.13628/2018 before this Court.
6. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties and after observing that the transfer of granted land made by the deceased father of the appellant was in clear violation of the provisions of PTCL Act proceeded to set aside the order passed by the respondent No.4 - Deputy Commissioner on the ground that restoration of the granted land in favour of the appellant cannot be sustained since the application was not filed by the appellant herein within a -7- reasonable time following the law laid down by the Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi -vs- State of Karnataka and another1 and Chhedi Lal Yadav and others -vs- Hari Kishore Yadav (D) Thr. Lrs and others2 and subsequent decisions of the Apex Court and this Court.
7. Assailing the correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, this present appeal has been filed.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the application filed by his deceased father for resumption and restitution of granted land was dismissed on 21st December 1981 and the date of filing of the said application should be reckoned for the purpose of determining the limitation period. He further submitted that having regard to the fact that the sale deed executed in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are in clear violation of the provision contained in PTCL Act, the learned Single Judge was 1 2018 (1) Kar.L.R 5 (SC) 2 [2018 (1) Kar.L.R 1 (SC)] -8- not correct in passing the impugned order and further sought for allowing this appeal.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the caveator/respondent No.2 and the learned Additional Government Advocate justified the order passed by the learned Single Judge and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
10. We have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel and also perused the material on record.
11. Admittedly, the land in question was granted to the father of the appellant on 13th June 1953 and he sold portions of granted land in favour of the grand mother of respondents No.6 and 7 and father of respondents No.8 to 12 by registered sale deeds dated 27th April 1964 and 24th April 1967 respectively. It is not in dispute that the said purchasers in turn sold the land in question in favour of respondents No.1 and 2 by registered sale deed dated -9- 30th May 1986 and 3rd January 1990. It is also not in dispute that the deceased father of the appellant filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act with the respondent No.5 - Assistant Commissioner for restoration of land on the ground that the alienations made by him are hit by Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act. However, the said application came to be dismissed on 21st December 1981 and the same was not challenged by the deceased father of the appellant or by the appellant at any point of time and the same has attained finality.
12. However, the appellant without challenging the earlier order passed by the respondent No.5 rejecting the earlier application for restoration filed another application on 9th January 2009. The said application came to be rejected holding that the purchasers have perfected their title over the granted land by adverse possession. In appeal, the respondent No.4 - Deputy Commissioner set aside the order passed by the respondent No.5 and restored the
- 10 -
possession of the granted land in favour of the appellant. The learned Single Judge having observed that the sale deeds executed in favour of purchasers are in clear violation of Section 4 (1) of the PTCL Act, however, allowed the writ petition on the ground that the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was filed after an inordinate delay of more than 40 to 45 years from the date of alienations made by the deceased father of the appellant.
13. Admittedly, the deceased father of the appellant during his life time or the appellant herein did not challenge the rejection of the application filed by his deceased father and the same has attained finality. Subsequent application is filed by the appellant after delay of more than 26 years from the date of commencement of PTCL Act and the said application is not maintainable as it is not filed within a reasonable time after commencement of PTCL act in 1979 as held by the Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra).
- 11 -
14. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the application filed by the deceased father of the appellant, which came to be dismissed on 21st December 1981, should be reckoned for the purpose of determining the limitation period is not tenable in law since the application filed by the deceased father of the appellant was rejected on 21st December 1981 and the same has attained finality.
15. The appellant having failed to file an application for restoration within reasonable time is not entitled for restoration and the learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner restoring the granted land in favour of the appellant.
16. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court that the grantees are not entitled for restoration of land, if an application for restoration is not filed within a reasonable time from the date of commencement of PTCL Act, we are of the view that
- 12 -
the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any illegalities or perversity.
Under these circumstances, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE Bkm