Karnataka High Court
Sri Rajendra vs The Special Deputy Commissioner on 3 February, 2020
Author: H T Narendra Prasad
Bench: H. T. Narendra Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION Nos.38418-19 OF 2011 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Rajendra,
S/o Late Krishnappa,
Aged about 48 years,
2. Sri. Rajanarayan @
Narayanaswamy
S/o Late Krishnappa,
Aged about 46 years,
Both are Residents of
Kada Agrahara,
Doddagubbi Post,
Bidarahalli Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk
...Petitioners
(By Sri. M. Srinivas Murthy for
Sri. G. Papi Reddy, Advocates)
AND:
1. The Special Deputy Commissioner,
Bengaluru District,
Bengaluru.
2. The Assistant Commissioner
Bengaluru North Sub-Division,
Bengaluru.
2
3. Sri. Katappa since dead by LR's
3(a) Smt. Annemma,
W/o Late Katappa,
Aged about 50 years,
Kadaagrahara Village,
Doddagubbi Post,
Bidarahalli Hobli,
Bangalroe East Taluk.
3(b) Smt. Nagaveni,
D/o Late Katappa,
W/o Shankar,
Aged about 26 years,
Behind BTS bus stand,
Kothanur Post,
K.R. Puram Post,
Bangalroe East Taluk.
4. Sri. Kantharaju,
S/o Late Katappa,
Aged about 32 years,
5. Sri. Raghu,
S/o Late Katappa,
Aged about 31 years,
6. Sri. Ravi,
S/o Late Katappa,
Aged about 30 years,
7. Sri. K. Raghavareddy,
S/o Late Katappa,
Aged about 61 years,
Respondents 4 to 7 are
R/of Kadaagrahara Village,
Doddagubbi Post,
Bidarahalli Hobli,
Bengaluru East Taluk.
... Respondents
3
(By Smt. Savithramma, HCGP for R1 & R2;
Sri. K. Vishwanatha for R7;
Sri. T.V. Anjanappa, Advocate for
R3(A & B), R4, R6)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated:
27.08.2009 passed by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-E and
quash the order dated 02.05.2011 passed by the respondent
No.1 vide Annexure-G.
These petitions coming on for Hearing, this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
These writ petitions are directed against the order dated 27.08.2009 passed by the respondent No.2 and the order dated 02.05.2011 passed by the respondent No.1 vide Annexures-E & G respectively.
2. The case of the petitioners is that the land bearing survey No.34 measuring 2 acres situated at Kada Agrahara, Bidarahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, now Bengaluru East Taluk was granted in favour of Poojappa under Darkhast Rules in the year 1962 and saguvali chit was issued on 17.10.1962 with a condition of non-alienation for a period of 15 years. The original grantee has sold that 4 property in favour of father of the petitioners by a sale deed dated 20.11.1963. The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'PTCL Act' for short) came into force on 01.01.1979. The legal representatives of the original grantee have filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act for resumption of land in the year 2007. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 27.08.2009 allowed the application and resumed the land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5-A of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner by order dated 02.05.2011 dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions.
3. Sri.M.Srinivas Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that land in 5 question was granted in favour of one Poojappa in the year 1962. He sold the land in favour of the father of the petitioners in the year 1963. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The legal representatives of the original grantee have filed an application for resumption of land in the year 2007, after a lapse of 28 years from the date the Act came into force. The application itself is not maintainable. In support of his contention, he has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi -v- State of Karnataka and Another reported in 2018 (1) Kar. LR 5 (SC) and sought for allowing the writ petitions.
4. Per contra, the learned counsels appearing for the respondents contended that the land was granted in the year 1963 with a condition of non-alienation for a period of 15 years. By violating the Grant Rules, land was sold in favour of the father of the petitioners in the year 1963. There is a violation of Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act. Therefore the authority has rightly resumed the land in 6 favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee. They further submit that the legal representatives of the original grantee were not aware of the provisions of the PTCL Act. Only after they became aware they filed the application. If this Court grants an opportunity to file an application for condonaton of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, they will file the same. They further contend that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satyan v/s Deputy Commissioner and others reported in AIR 2019 SC 2797, held that eight years is not a delay in invoking the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. Hence they sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.
5. Smt. K. Savithramma, Learned government pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has contended that the land was granted in the year 1962 with a condition of non-alienation for a period of 15 years. The original grantee sold the land in the year 1963 violating the conditions of the grant. There is a violation of Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act. Therefore, the authority has rightly 7 resumed the land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee. Hence, she sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers.
7. It is not in dispute that the land in question measuring 2 acres situated at Kada Agrahara, Bidarahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, now Bengaluru East Taluk was originally granted in favour of Poojappa under Darkhast Rules in the year 1962 with a condition of non-alienation for a period of 15 years. By violating the same the original grantee sold the property in favour of father of the petitioner in the year 1963. The said Krishnappa died in the year 1989. The PTCL Act came into the force on 01.01.1979. The legal representatives of the original grantee have filed the application before Assistant Commissioner in the year 2007 under Sections 4 and 5 for resumption of the land. The application filed by the legal 8 representatives of original grantee is after a lapse of more than 28 years from the date the Act came into the force and the application itself is not maintainable.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra) at paragraph No.8 has held as under:
"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 9 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 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 10 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. In the above judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that the application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act for resumption of land has to be filed within a reasonable time. In the case on hand, the land has been granted in the year 1962, the same has been sold in favour of father of petitioner in the year 1963, the PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. Legal representatives of original grantee have filed the application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act for resumption of land in the year 2007. There is an unexplained inordinate delay of 28 years from the date the Act came into force in filing the application for resumption of the land and the application itself is not maintainable. In the case of Satyan (supra), the Apex Court has opined that the delay of 8 years in filing the application is not a delay, but in the case on hand there is a delay of 28 years and the 11 contention of the petitioner regarding filing of the application for condonation of delay, this issue has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.846/2019 disposed of on 19.06.2019 wherein at para No.5 it is held as hereinbelow:
"5. The law on the aspect is very clear. There is no specific limitation prescribed in Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The application has to be filed within a reasonable time. By no stretch of imagination, the application made by the appellants, after a lapse of nearly 32 years from the date on which PTCL Act came into force, can be said to be filed within a reasonable time."
Therefore it is very clear that the application has to be filed under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act within a reasonable time. In view of the above, the impugned order vide Annexures - E and G are liable to be set aside.
10. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed the dated 27.08.2009 passed by the respondent No.2 and the 12 order dated 02.05.2011 passed by the respondent No.1 vide Annexures-E & G respectively are quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE LL