Karnataka High Court
Sri. K. N. Krishna Reddy vs State Of Karnataka on 1 August, 2019
Author: H T Narendra Prasad
Bench: H. T. Narendra Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
W.P.No.50367 OF 2018(SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
Sri.K.N.Krishna Reddy
S/o Late Nanjappa Reddy
Aged about 73 years
R/at No.41/9, 13th Cross
6th 'D' Main HAL 2nd Stage
Bengaluru-560 038
... Petitioner
(By Sri.Subramanya R., Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka
Department of Revenue
Vidhana Soudha
Bengaluru-560 001
Represented by its
Principal Secretary
2. Deputy Commissioner
Bengaluru Urban District
Bengaluru-560 001.
3. Assistant Commissioner
Bengaluru Sub-Division
Bengaluru-560 001.
2
4. Sri. Hanumanthappa
S/o Late. Anjinappa
Aged about 48 years
R/at Chikkagubbi
Bidarahalli Hobli
Bengaluru East Taluk-560 049.
5. Smt. Gowramma
W/o Late. Muniswamy Reddy
Since deceased represented by
R6 to R13 who are already on record.
6. Sri. Narayana Reddy
S/o Late. Dodda Muniswamy Reddy
Major
7. Smt. Meenakshamma
D/o Late. Dodd Muniswamy Reddy
Major
8. Sri. Vasudeva Reddy
S/o Late. Dodda Muniswamy Reddy
Major
9. Sri. Kodandarama Reddy
S/o Late. Dodda Muniswamy Reddy
Major
10. Sri.Somashekhara Reddy
S/o Late. Dodda Muniswamy Reddy
Major
11. Sri. Guru Reddy
S/o Late. Dodda Muniswamy Reddy
Major
12. Smt. Manjula
D/o Late. Dodda Muniswamy Reddy
3
Major
13. Smt. Kanthamma
D/o Late. Dodda Muniswamy Reddy
Major
Respondents No.6 to 13 all are
R/at Maragondanahalli
Bidarahalli Hobli
Thambuchetty Palya
Bengaluru East Taluk-560 036.
14. Sri Krishna Reddy
S/o Chikkthayappa
Major
R/at Chellakere Village
Ring Road
Kalyan Nagar Post
Bengaluru-560 043.
15. Smt. H.Kavitha
W/o H.D.Balakrishnegowda
R/at No.12, 80 Feet Road
Padmanabha Nagar
Bengaluru-560 070. ... Respondents
(By Smt. Savithramma, HCGP. For R1 to R3:
Smt.Swamini G.M., Advocate for R15:
Notice to R6 to R9, R12 to R14 is dispensed with
Vide order dated: 31.01.2019:
R4, R10, R11 are served)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order
passed by the respondent No.2 Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru
Rural District dated: 06.06.2018 (produced as Annexure-A) and
etc.
4
This writ petition, coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B'
Group, this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER
This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the second respondent Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District, dated 06.06.2018 vide Annexure-A.
2. The land bearing Sy.No.98 (new No.98/3) measuring 2 acres situated at Chikkagubbi Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru District was originally granted in favour of Anjinappa on 30.04.1969. He sold the said land to Dodda Muniswamy Reddy on 28.09.1970, who in turn sold it to one Krishna Reddy (1 acre) and Smt.Kavitha (1 acre). Afterwards, Krishna Reddy inturn sold 1 acre of land to Smt.Kavitha and Smt.Kavitha in turn sold the 2 acres of land in favour of the petitioner by two registered sale deeds dated 25.08.2006 and 27.12.2006.
3. The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the PTCL Act') came into force on 01.01.1979. The fourth 5 respondent herein who is the legal representative of the original grantee filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner for restoration of the land under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 01.04.2013 dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved by the same, the legal representative of the original grantee has filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 06.06.2018 (Annexure-A) has allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
4. Sri R.Subramanya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the land has been granted in favour of the original grantee on 30.04.1969 and there has been four sale transactions. Finally, the petitioner purchased the said land on 25.08.2006 and 27.12.2006. He submitted that the PTCL Act came into force on 1st January 1979. The application for restoration of the land has been filed after a delay of 30 years. But, the Deputy Commissioner, without considering this aspect of the matter has allowed the appeal. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.
6
5. The fourth respondent, who is the legal representative of the original allottee has been served and unrepresented.
6. Smt.Savithramma, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 supported the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers.
8. It is not in dispute that the land has been originally granted in favour of Anjinappa on 30.04.1969 and there has been four sale transactions. First sale has taken place on 28.09.1970. Finally, the petitioner purchased the said land on 25.08.2006 and 27.12.2006. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The legal representative of the original grantee has filed an application in the year 2010 under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. There is a delay of more than 30 years in invoking the provisions of the PTCL Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI vs. STATE OF 7 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 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 8 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."
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 9 laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI (supra) the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is unsustainable.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure-A dated 06.06.2018 passed by the Deputy Commoner is set aside.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cm/-