Karnataka High Court
Shri C Bhaskaran vs The Assistant Commissioner on 14 January, 2022
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.57628 OF 2013 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
SHRI C.BHASKARAN
S/O LATE P.K.PANICKER
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
AT: U.P.SCHOOL, ANAMANGAD
PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPURAM DISTRICT
KERALA - 679 357.
REPRESENTED BY G.P.A. HOLDER
SRI.C.PRAMOD
S/O SRI.C.GOPALAN
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
NO.153, 5TH CROSS, 1ST BLOCK
JAYANAGARA, BANGALORE - 560011. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.MANMOHAN.P.N - ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION
CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101.
2
3. SHRI NARASIMHAPPA
S/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
DODDAKIRUGUMBI GRAMA
NANDI HOBLI
CHICKBALLAPURA TALUK - 562 101.
4. SMT.G.K.SUJATHA
W/O. SRI LASKHMIPATHI REDDY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
KAMBADA HALLI, KASABA HOBLI
SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK - 562 105.
5. SRI.P.SHANKARA BABU
S/O SRI.VENKATA RAO
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
P.S.B. HOUSE, TERU STREET
MELINAPETE, HOSAKOTE
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHIVANANDA.D.S., AGA - FOR R1 & 2;
SRI.N.THEJESH RAO - ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.K.S.RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R4 - HELD SUFFICIENT, R5 - SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING
CERTAIN RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Sri.Manmohan.P.N, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri.N.Thejesh Rao, learned counsel on behalf of Sri.K.S.Ramesh for respondent No.3 have appeared through video conferencing.
Sri.Shivananda.D.S., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 has appeared in person.
2. The facts are simply stated as under:-
The property bearing Sy.No.60/P5 of Doddakirugumbi Village, Nandi Hobli, Chikkaballapura
Taluk, measuring 4 Acres 24 Guntas was granted in favor of one Sri.Narasimhappa vide order No.LND:CB:456/72-73 on 20.10.1973. The Grant Certificate was issued on 29.05.1978. The Certificate is clear that the land was granted for price of Rs.485/- and the same was deposited in the Treasury.
It is stated that Narasimhappa and his family members have sold the granted land in favour of one 4 Smt.G.K.Sujatha - the fourth respondent on 16.07.1995. The sale deed was executed after the expiry period specified in non-alienation clause-7 of the Grant Certificate. The revenue records were changed in favour of Smt.G.K.Sujatha in M.R.No.9/95-96.
It is said that Smt.G.K.Sujatha and her husband K.Lakshimipathi Reddy have sold the said property along with another property in favour of one - P.Shankara Babu - the fifth respondent on 28.10.1999. Pursuant thereto, revenue entries were changed in the name of P.Shankara Babu.
As things stood thus one N.Paramesh, Son of Narasimhappa (the third respondent) filed a petition under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer on Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'PTCL Act') in PTCL No.29/2006-07 before the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkaballapura Sub-Division, Chikkaballapura, to initiate action under the PTCL Act, for resumption of the land and to restore the 5 same to him. The grounds urged by him was that the land in question was in unauthorized occupation of his father and in view of the same, the said land was granted to his father with the non-alienation clause of 15 years and the same was sold by his father in favour of one Smt.G.K.Sujatha which violates provisions of PTCL Act.
It is also stated that on 07.05.2006, Paramesh filed a memo before the Assistant Commissioner to permit him to withdraw the petition on the ground that the land was sold after non- alienation period. On the basis of the said memo, the Assistant Commissioner has given a clear finding that there are no records to show as to whether the land granted is for the price or auction or etc., The statement of Paramesh was noted and disposed of the petition.
It is said that P.Shankara Babu and his children sold the said property along with other properties in favour of the petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 20.09.2007. The petitioner's vendor have not disclosed 6 about the aforesaid proceedings. The copy of the Grant Certificate was furnished. There is no indication in the Grant Certificate that the land is granted in favour of the person belongs to Scheduled Caste. The only restriction imposed in the Certificate is non-alienation for a period of 15 years. The first sale is after the expiry of 15 years. There were no encumbrances or any entries in any of the revenue records. In view of the same, the petitioner purchased the property in question under a registered sale deed for valuable consideration. The third respondent handed over the possession of the property in favour of Smt.G.K.Sujatha and she continued to be in possession and later the successors in title and now the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property. The Mutation has also been effected in the name of the petitioner.
It is averred that after the purchase of the property by the petitioner, the third respondent filed a petition under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act in PTCL (Chicka) No.221/2007-08. It is said that the petition is almost a 7 replica of petition filed by his son except making certain corrections. Therefore, it was contended that the petition was filed in collusion with his son. It is also contended that the petitioner filed objections making it very clear that the provisions of PTCL Act is not applicable to the present case and further stated that the claim made by them is barred by law of limitation and hence, the same is unsustainable in law.
The Assistant Commissioner passed an order on 15.02.2010 without considering the facts. Aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner in R.A/SCST/49(A)/2009-10 under Section 5 (A) of the PTCL Act. The Deputy Commissioner passed the order on 11.11.2013.
Under these circumstances, the petitioner having left with no other alternative and efficacious remedy has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
8
3. Sri.Manmohan P.N., learned counsel for petitioner submits that the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are illegal arbitrary.
Next, he submitted that the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have failed to note that the Competent Authority has granted the land measuring 4 acres 24 guntas in favour of the third respondent. It is not a special grant. The only condition imposed in the Grant Certificate is that the grantee shall not alienate the land within 15 years from the date of the grant. Admittedly, the property was sold much after expiry of non-alienation period imposed in the Grant Certificate. Therefore, the provisions of the PTCL Act are not applicable.
A further submission was made that the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have failed to notice that the land granted is for market value in favour of the third respondent and the land was alienated after expiry of non-alienation period, however, it was opined 9 that the third respondent belongs to Scheduled Caste and permission as required under Section 4 (2) of the Act has not been obtained and therefore, there is violation and the sale deed of the petitioner required to be held as invalid.
It is submitted that the respondents failed to note that merely because Grantee is a Scheduled Caste he is entitled for seeking resumption of land under PTCL Act irrespective of the fact that the land granted under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act for market value.
Counsel vehemently urged that the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner failed to note that the land was granted on 20.10.1973. Non- alienation clause is for a period of 15 years and it expired on 19.10.1988, the proceedings were initiated after 20 years. Therefore, the claim of the third respondent is barred by the petition and no explanation was forthcoming to condone the delay. Even otherwise, the third respondent's son had filed a petition and withdrew the same and the same petition was represented in the name 10 of the third respondent. Hence, it is submitted that it is a clear case of abuse of provisions of law and process of the Authorities constituted under the statute. The said aspect has been totally overlooked by the respondents 1 and 2 hence, the order is bad.
Learned counsel relied upon the following decisions:-
1. NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER - (2020) 14 SCC 232.
2. NINGAPPA VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS - (2020) 14 SCC 236.
3. SMT.NINGAMMA VS THE TIBETIAN CHILDERN'S VILLAGE AND OTHERS - W.A.No.4092/2017(SC/ST) disposed of on 09.04.2019.
4. SMT.MANGAMMA AND OTHERS VS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS- W.P.No.50446/2012 (SC/ST) disposed of on 24.01.2020.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that any action to challenge violation of provisions of PTCL Act would have to be initiated within a reasonable 11 time and in the case on hand, the action is initiated after 20 years from the date of sale.
He also submitted that the Apex Court in catena of decisions has held that the application for restoration of land has to be filed within a reasonable time. Accordingly, he submitted that appropriate order may be passed.
5. Heard the contention urged on behalf of parties and perused the writ papers with utmost care.
The short point which requires to be answered is whether the application filed under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act for resumption of the land is within reasonable time?
In the present case, the land in question was granted in the year 1973. The non-alienation period was 15 years. The period of 15 years ended on 19.10.1988. The grantee became the absolute owner w.e.f. 20.10.1988. The first alienation took place in the year 12 1995. The proceedings under Sections 4 & 5 of the PTCL Act for resumption of the land Act were initiated in the year 2007-08, after 11 years. There is an inordinate delay.
It is perhaps well to observe that the law is settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232 that application for restoration of land has to be filed within a reasonable time. As already noted above, in the present case, the application is filed after 11 years.
I may venture to say that the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have failed
to have regard to relevant considerations and disregarded relevant matters. In my considered opinion, the orders are unsustainable in law.
6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated:11.11.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in RA/SCST/49(A)/2009-10 at Annexure-'Q' 13 and also the order dated:15.02.2010 passed by the Assistant Commissioner in PTCL (Chikka) 221/2007-08 at Annexure-'M' are quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE TKN