Karnataka High Court
Smt.Manjula vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 January, 2020
Author: H T Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO.49143/2014 (SC - ST)
BETWEEN:
SMT. MANJULA
W/O MANOHAR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT MINASANDRA
LAKKUR HOBLI
MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT.
.... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.G.B. MANJUNATHA, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M.S. BUILDING, K.R. CIRCLE
VIDHANA VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOLAR DISTRICT
KOLAR-563101.
2
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KOLAR SUB DIVISION
KOLAR-563101.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
MALUR TALUK
MALUR-563130
KOLAR DISTRICT.
5. SMT. CHINNAMMA
D/O MUNISHAMAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY LRs
5(a). SRI.THIMMARAYAPPA
S/O KADIRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
5(b). SRI.NARAYANA SWAMY
S/O KADIRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
MINASANDRA VILLAGE
LAKKUR HOBLI
MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT
PIN:563130.
6. SMT. YASHODAMMA
D/O CHINNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/O TALEKUNTE VILLAGE
LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT
PIN:563130.
3
7. SRI. T MUNIVENKATAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs
7(a). SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O SUBRAMANYA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
7(b). SMT. SAVITHRAMMA
D/O T MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
7(c). SMT. VARALAKSHMI
D/O T. MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
7(d). SMT. MUNIVENKATAMMA
D/O T. MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
7(e). SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA
W/O T. MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
7(f). SRI. RAJAPPA
S/O T. MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
7(g). SRI. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O T. MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
7(h). SRI. THIMMARAYAGOWDA
S/O T. MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
4
7(i). SMT. AMMAYYA
D/O T. MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RESPONDENTS 7(a) TO (i)
ARE RESIDING AT
CHENNIGARAYAPURA VILLAGE
LAKKUR HOBLI
MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT
PIN:563130.
.... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, HCGP. FOR R1 TO R4
SRI. UMESH B.N., ADV. FOR R5 (b)
SRI. RASHEED KHAN, ADV. FOR R5 (a) & R6
NOTICE TO R7(a) & (f) IS H/S V/O DT:02/06/2015
NOTICE TO R7(b), (c), (d), (e), (g), (h) & (i) IS H/S V/O
DT:05/10/2015 THROUGH PAPER PUBLICATION)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.08.2014 PASSED IN
R.A.SC/ST. 11/2011-12 ON THE FILE OF THE
DY.COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DIST., KOLAR AS PER ANN-F
AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL & VOID AB-INITIO.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
5
ORDER
This writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.08.2014 in RA.SC/ST.11/2011-12 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District vide Annexure-F, whereby he has allowed the application filed by the grantees under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act,1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PTCL Act' for short).
2. The brief facts of the case are that the land bearing Sy.No.35, measuring 2 acres situated at Talakunte village, Lakkur Hobli, Malur Taluk, Kolar District was originally granted in favour of Banapallappa by the Government under the Land Grant Rules on 30.04.1961. The legal representatives of the original grantee had sold that land in favour of one T.Munivenkatappa under the sale deed dated 26.08.1971. The said Munivenkatappa in turn sold the said land in favour of the petitioner by a registered sale 6 deed dated 06.10.2004. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979.
3. The legal representatives of the original grantee had filed an application for restoration of the land under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act in the year 2005. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 03.08.2011 dismissed the application filed by the legal representatives of original grantee. Being aggrieved by the same, the legal representatives of original grantee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, whereby the Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal by order dated 20.08.2014 restored the land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.
4. Sri.G.B.Manjunatha, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the land was originally granted in favour of Banapallappa by the Government under Land 7 Grant Rules on 30.04.1961. In the Saguvali Chit, non- alienation clause for a period of 10 years is mentioned. The legal representatives of the original grantee sold the land in favour of one T.Munivenkatappa by sale deed dated 26.08.1971, in turn the said Munivenkatappa sold the land in favour of the petitioner. The first sale has been taken place after 10 years and the original grantee has not violated any conditions. Secondly, he has contended that the first sale has taken place on 26.08.1971 and the PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979 and the application under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act was filed in the year 2005 for restoration of land. There is a delay of 27 years in filing the application and the same is not maintainable. In support of his case, learned counsel has relied on judgment of the Apex Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in 2018(1) KLR 5 (SC) and also judgment of this Court in the case of MUNIMADA v/s 8 SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER reported in 2019 (2) KLR 661 and an unreported decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.4092/2017 disposed off on 09.04.2019.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.5(b) and the learned Government Advocate contended that the land was granted on 30.04.1961. As per the rules, there was non-alienation clause for a period of 15 years and the property has been alienated on 26.08.1971 before 15 years, by violating the conditions of grant. Hence, they contend that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is in accordance with law and hey sought for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. It is not in dispute that the land bearing Sy.No.35 measuring 2 acres situated in Talakunte village, Lakkur Hobli, Maluru Taluk, Kolar District was originally granted 9 in favour of Banapalleppa by grant order dated 30.04.1961. The legal representatives of the said original grantee had sold the said land in favour of T.Munivenkatappa by sale deed dated 26.08.1971, the said Munivenkatappa in turn sold the said land in favour of the petitioner by a registered sale deed dated 06.10.2004 and the PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The legal representatives of original grantee had filed the application under Section 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act for restoration of land in the year 2005. There is inordinate delay of 27 years in filing the application for restoration of land.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in 2017 SCC Online SC 1862 has held as hereunder:
"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 10 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 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 11 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."
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgment held that Section 5 of the said Act has to be invoked within a reasonable time. In this case there is a delay of more than 30 years in invoking Section 5 of the PTCL Act. In view of the law laid 12 down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI (supra) the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is unsustainable.
9. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of MUNIMADA (supra) and the judgment in W.A.No.4092/2017 has held that the grantee has to invoke the provisions under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act within a reasonable time. In the case on hand, the land has been granted on 30.04.1961; the first sale has been taken placed on 26.08.1971; the PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979 and the application for restoration of land was filed during the year 2005. There is inordinate and unexplained delay of 27 years in filing the application. The application filed by the legal representatives of the original grantee itself is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said decision. 13 Hence, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-F requires to be quashed.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.08.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in R.A.SC/ST. 11/2011-12 is quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms