Karnataka High Court
Smt. Chowdamma W/O Motappa, Since Dead ... vs Special Deputy Commissioner on 17 February, 2020
Bench: Chief Justice, Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT APPEAL No.116 OF 2020 (SC/ST)
A/W
WRIT APPEAL No. 118 OF 2020 (SC/ST)
WA.No.116/2020
BETWEEN:
Smt. CHOWDAMMA
W/O MOTAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY LRS.,
1. Smt. BYRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
D/O MOTAPPA
RESIDING AT KANNUR VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK - 560 043.
2. Smt. GANGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS
W/O LATE BODAPPA
3. SRI NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
S/O LATE BODAPPA
APPELLANTS NO.2 & 3
ARE RESIDING AT
KANNUR VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK - 560 043. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI BHADRINATH R., ADVOCATE )
-2-
AND:
1. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU DISTRICT
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU SUB DIVISION
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE TAHSIDLAR
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. Smt. MANIRATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
D/O. MOTAPPA
5. SRI D. CHANNAKESHWAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
S/O DODDA MUNITHAYAPPA
RESIDING AT YERRAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.
6. SRI JAYMPALA RAVINDRA BABU
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
S/O LATE JAMPALA NARASIMHA RAO
RESIDING AT NO.52 SENA VIHAR
KAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD
KALYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 043.
7. SRI R. BALASHANKAR REDDY
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
S/O LATE K. MALLA REDDY
RESIDING AT NO.6 NAGARESHWARA
NAGANAHALLI KOTHNUR POST
BENGALURU - 560 077. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3
SRI D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI A.V. SRIHARI, ADOVCATE FOR R7)
-3-
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
09.12.2019 IN W.P.NO.2279 OF 2012 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT, AND
ETC.
WA. NO. 118 OF 2020
SMT. CHOWDAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.,
1. Smt. BYRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
D/O MOTAPPA
RESIDING AT KANNUR VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK - 560 043.
2. Smt. GANGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS
W/O LATE BODAPPA
3. SRI NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
S/O LATE BODAPPA
APPELLANTS No.2 & 3
ARE RESIDING AT
KANNUR VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK - 560 043. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI BHADRINATH R., ADVOCATE )
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
VIDHANA VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.
-4-
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU DISTRICT
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU SUB DIVISION
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 001.
Smt. CHOWDAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.,
5. Smt. MANIRATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
D/O MOTAPPA
KANNUR VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 043.
6. SRI CAMPALA RAVINDRA BABU
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE APPLLANTS
RESIDING AT KANNUR VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 043.
7. Smt. SHASHIKALA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
W/O SHRI ASHOK
RESIDING AT NO.179/2
KANNUR VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 043.
8. SRI KUMAR GURU
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
S/O LOKANATH
-5-
RESIDING AT NO.179/2/C
KANNUR VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 043.
9. SRI S. ASHOK
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
S/O SRIDHAR NAIDU
RESIDING AT NO.179/2
KANNUR VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI EAST TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 043. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AGA FOR R1 TO R4
SRI D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI A.V. SRIHARI, ADOVCATE FOR R7 AND 79)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
09.12.2019 IN W.P.NO.11481 OF 2012 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT, AND
ETC.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR J, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed against the common order dated 9th December 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.2279/2012 c/w WP No.11481/2012.
2. Since the common order passed by the learned Single Judge has been challenged in these appeals, both -6- the appeals are clubbed together and disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The land bearing Sy.No.16, New Sy.No.179 measuring 2 acres 10 guntas situated at Kannur village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk was granted to one Motappa on 16th August 1948. He sold a portion of granted land measuring 1 acre 20 guntas to Gangamma by executing a registered sale deed dated 7th February 1975. Subsequently, the original grantee and Smt.Gangamma together sold the entire extent of granted land measuring 2 acres 10 guntas in favour of Smt.Tarabai by executing a registered saledeed dated 17th July 1987. Thereafter Smt.Tarabai sold a portion of the granted land to Chennakeshavaiah and the remaining portion in favour of Smt.Fathima Mary, in turn the seventh respondent purchased 39.5 guntas of granted land from Chennakeshavaiah on 5th June 2002 and the remaining portion of 20.08 guntas was purchased by the seventh respondent from Jampala Ravindra Babu on 17th September 2009.
-7-
4. After commencement of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short `PTCL Act'), the appellants filed an application in the year 2002 with the second respondent - Assistant Commissioner under Section 5 of the said PTCL Act for resumption and restitution of the granted land in their favour. Second respondent - Assistant Commissioner by order dated 11th July 2005 dismissed the application holding that the land in respect of which occupancy right has been conferred under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 would not fall within the ambit of granted land as defined under Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the PTCL Act.
5. Being aggrieved , the appellants filed an appeal under Section 5A of the PTCL Act before the first respondent - Deputy Commissioner. First respondent Deputy Commissioner after hearing, set aside the order passed by the second respondent - Assistant Commissioner holding that the alienation of granted land by the original grantee is hit by sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the PTCL -8- Act and further restored the land in favour of these appellants.
6. Seventh respondent in WA No.116/2020 and seventh to ninth respondents in WA No.118/2020 filed W.P.No.2279/2012 and WP No.11481/2012 challenging the order passed by the first respondent restoring the granted land in favour of these appellants.
7. Learned Single Judge after hearing the parties proceeded to set aside the order/s passed by the first respondent on the ground that restoration of the granted land in favour of the appellants cannot be sustained since the application for resumption and restitution was not filed within a reasonable time following the law laid down by the Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi -vs- State of Karnataka and another1and Chhedi Lal Yadav and others -vs- Hari Kishore Yadav (D) Thr. Lrs and others2.
8. Taking exception to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, these present appeals have been filed.
1 2018 (1) Kar.L.R 5 (SC) 2 [2018 (1) Kar.L.R 1 (SC)] -9-
9. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants being illiterate and coming from economically and socially backward community did not file an application for restoration within the reasonable time. He further submitted that the PTCL Act being a beneficial legislation, the learned Single Judge was not justified in setting aside the order of restoration of land in their favour only on the ground that the application was not filed within a reasonable time and instead should have condoned the delay in filing the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that there is no time prescribed for filing an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act and as such, the question of filing an application within the reasonable time does not arise. He further contended that the appellants were not provided with sufficient opportunity to explain the delay in filing the application for restoration and accordingly sought for remitting the matters to the learned Single Judge so as to enable the appellants to explain the delay in filing the application for restoration as was done in the case of Smt.P Kamala -vs- State of Karnataka and others in WP Nos.596 - 597/2016 and other connected cases decided on
- 10 -
8th July 2019. Accordingly, he sought for allowing the appeals and restore the order of the first respondent.
10. Learned counsel for the seventh respondent in WA No.116/2020 and the seventh and ninth respondents in WA No.118/2020 justified the order passed by the learned Single Judge and sought for dismissal of the writ appeals.
11. We have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel and also perused the material on record.
12. Admittedly the land in question was granted in the year 1948. Original grantee alienated the granted land in favour of Gangamma by executing a sale deed dated 7th February 1975. Thereafter the granted land was purchased by Tarabai on 17th July 1987. Subsequently, the seventh respondent in WA No.116/2020 and seventh and ninth respondents in WA No.118/2020 purchased the land on 5th June 2002 and 17th September 2009 respectively.
13. Appellants after inordinate delay of 23 years from the date on which PTCL Act came in to force filed an
- 11 -
application with the second respondent for restoration of granted land. Learned Single Judge relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra) allowed the writ petition and further set aside the order of the first respondent restoring the land in favour of the appellants on the ground that application was not filed within a reasonable time.
14. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants being illiterate and coming from economically weaker section did not file an application for restoration within a reasonable time and the PTCL Act being a beneficial legislation and as such, the delay in filing the application for restoration of land should have been condoned cannot be accepted for the reason that the application which was not filed within a reasonable time is not maintainable in view of the law laid down in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi(supra) and also there can be no explanation for the inordinate delay of 23 years in filing the application for restoration when the granted land was transferred several time from the date of grant of land till filing of the application for restoration.
- 12 -
15. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the matter requires to be remitted to the learned Single Judge so as to enable the appellants to explain the delay in filing the application for restoration cannot be accepted for the reason that while filing statement of objections before the learned single Judge, the appellant could have explained the delay that was not done. Moreover, there cannot be any explanation for the inordinate delay of 23 years in filing an application for restoration of granted land and will not warrant to exercise of such power for condoning the delay and as such, no purpose will be served by remitting the matter to the learned Single Judge.
16. Appellants having failed to file an application for restoration within a reasonable time are not entitled for restoration and the learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the order/s passed by the first respondent restoring the granted land in favour of the appellants.
17. 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
- 13 -
reasonable time from the date of commencement of PTCL Act, we are of the view that 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 appeals are dismissed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE Bkm