Karnataka High Court
Smt Muniyamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:1710-DB
W.A. No.885/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.885/2022 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MUNIYAMMA
W/O KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
2. GANGADHAR
S/O KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
Digitally signed
by ARSHIFA 3. SRI. SHIVAPPA
BAHAR KHANAM S/O KRISHNAPPA
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA APPELLANTS ARE R/AT
GILLACHINNAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA P, ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHIKKABALLAPUR (D)
CHIKKABALLAPUR 562101.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562101.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:1710-DB
W.A. No.885/2022
4. SMT. KANTHAMMA
W/O SRI. R.N. RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT CHAMARAJA PET, 3RD DIVISION
CHIKKABALLAPUR TOWN
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 101.
5. SMT. M.A. LAKSHMI
W/O SRI. MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT KUPPAHALLI VILLAGE
NANDHI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.R. RAGHAVENDRA, ADV., FOR C/R4
SRI. DEVARAJ C.H. GOVT., FOR R1 TO R3
R5 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN WP
No.2913/2016 (SC/ST) FURTHER IT IS PLEASED TO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT/ORDER DATED 10.02.2022 IN WP
No.2913/2016 (SC/ST) PASSED THERE IN BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE WA
AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEF AS ARE JUST
AND NECESSARY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This appeal is challenged against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10.02.2022 in -3- NC: 2025:KHC:1710-DB W.A. No.885/2022 W.P.No.2913/2016. The writ petition was filed by respondent No.4 herein challenging the orders passed by respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner as well as respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-F and G respectively. The Petitioner contended before the learned Single Judge that land measuring three acres in Sy.No.26/1 (new Sy.No.26/P1) situated at Golluchennappanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chikkaballapura Taluk and District was granted to one Doddasubbaiah by order of the Tahasildar, Chikkaballapura Taluk dated 25.10.1979. It was contended that after completion of the non-alienation period of 15 years, Doddasubbaiah and his legal heirs sold two acres in favour of one Lakshmi, wife of A. Manjunath under registered sale deed dated 09.10.1995. Thereafter, Lakshmi sold the property in favour of the writ petitioner/respondent No.4 herein by a registered sale deed on 18.01.2001. The legal heirs of the original grantee filed an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of -4- NC: 2025:KHC:1710-DB W.A. No.885/2022 Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short 'the PTCL Act') before Assistant Commissioner as PTCL(Chikka) No.34/2006-07. The application was allowed at Annexure- F by order dated 22.06.2011. Though the writ petitioner/respondent No.4 herein challenged the said order before the Deputy Commissioner, the appeal was dismissed on 23.12.2013. The said orders were under challenge in the writ petition.
2. After hearing the parties and considering the contentions advanced, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the original grantee and his legal heirs had sold the property in the year 1995 and that it was after the non-alienation period in the Form-I - Grant certificate i.e., a period of 15 years from the date of grant i.e., 25.10.1979 that the first sale was made. Further, it was found that the writ petitioner had purchased the land in 2001 and that the proceedings of the PTCL Act were initiated belatedly. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of -5- NC: 2025:KHC:1710-DB W.A. No.885/2022 Karnataka1, the application for restoration of land was held to be belated and the writ petition was allowed.
3. When the matter was taken up today, there was no appearance for the appellants before this Court. However, we notice from the memorandum of appeal that the grounds urged are that though the grant was on 25.10.1979, the grant certificate was issued only on 20.06.1980. It is submitted that since the SC-ST (PTCL) Act came into effect on 01.01.1979, the first sale which took place on 09.10.1995 was in violation of the provision of the Act i.e., specifically Section 4(2) thereof. It is further contended that though there was a non-alienation condition mentioned in the grant, as per Section 4(1) of the SC-ST (PTCL) Act, there is a permanent prohibition for alienation of land granted under the provisions of the said Act. It is further contended that the decision of the Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi's case referred supra is not applicable since the petition was filed in the year 1 (2020) 14 SCC 232 -6- NC: 2025:KHC:1710-DB W.A. No.885/2022 2006-07 and that the inordinate delay cannot be attributed to the applicants in filing the petition before the Assistant Commissioner.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the land in question was never granted to Doddasubbaiah and that the land had been sold for upset price and had been purchased by Doddasubbaiah as is evident from Annexure-A1. It is submitted that in view of the fact that the land was purchased by Doddasubbaiah after fixing of the upset price, it is not the land granted under the darkhast rules and would not come under the provisions of SC-ST (PTCL) Act at all. It is further submitted that the non-alienation clause was for a period of 15 years and that the land was initially sold after the non-alienation clause had expired in 1995. Further, the writ petitioner had purchased the property in 2001. It is in those circumstances that the learned Single Judge had found that there was inordinate delay on the part of the appellants in approaching the Assistant Commissioner with -7- NC: 2025:KHC:1710-DB W.A. No.885/2022 an application under Section 5 of SC-ST (PTCL) Act. The learned counsel would also place reliance on the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 25.11.2024 in W.A.No.210/2023. It is submitted that in almost similar circumstances and timelines, this Court has specifically held that where the first alienation was in the year 1995 and the application for restoration filed in the year 2007- 08, after the lapse of more than 11 years, it was not filed within a reasonable period and that the orders of restoration passed on such an application are bad in law. It is submitted that the decisions of the Apex Court as well as of this Court on the point specifically adverted to in the said judgment have been considered to hold that a delay of 11 years defeats an application for restoration. Learned counsel would also placed reliance on another judgment of this Court dated 23.06.2023 in W.A.No.100265/2023 where it was held that even a delay of more than 7 years would defeat an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:1710-DB W.A. No.885/2022
5. Having considered the contentions advanced and in view of the fact that admittedly, the first sale was on 09.10.1995 and it is only in the year 2006-07, that an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act had been preferred before Assistant Commissioner by the appellants, we are of the opinion that the finding of the learned Single Judge that there was inordinate delay in approaching the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of the PTCL Act cannot be found fault with. In the above view of the matter and in the light of the judgments relied on, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal. The appeal accordingly fails and the same is dismissed. There will be no order to costs.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1