Karnataka High Court
Mr. Yathiraju vs The Deputy Commissioner on 25 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK.S.KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.19079 OF 2014 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
1 . MR. YATHIRAJU
S/O.LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGE 46 YEARS.
2 . SRI RAMAKRISHNA
S/O.LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGE 50 YEARS.
3 . MRS. VENKATAMMA
W/O.LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGE 77 YEARS.
ALL R/AT NO.41,
JUNNASANDARA VILLAGE,
CARMALARAM POST,
SARJAPURA ROAD,
BANGALOE-560 035.
...PETITIONERS
(By Sri. SANKET M YENAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 009.
2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORT SUB-DIVISION,
BANGALORE-560 009.
-2-
3 . SRI THOMMANA LONAPPAN ANTHONY,
S/O. SRI LONAPPAN,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
NO.478, 5TH BLOCK, I CROSS, KHB COLONY,
BANGALORE-560 034.
4 . MR. MONJOH FRANCIS,
P.C. FRANCIS, AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS,
NO.892, I FLOOR, 17TH MAIN ROAD,
26TH CROSS, HSR LAYOUT,
SECTOR-3,
BANGALORE-560 034.
5 . MASTER TITO PAUL,
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,
S/O. SRI K.K. POLOUSE,
SINCE MINOR REP. BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN
MOTHER SMT. DISY POLOUSE,
W/O. SRI K.K.POULOUS,
NO.1245, 25TH A-CROSS,
HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR-2,
BANGALORE-560 034.
6 . MASTER ALOSH PAUL,
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS,
S/O. SRI K.K POLOUSE,
SINCE MINOR REP.BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN,
MOTHER SMT, DISY POLOUSE,
W/O.SRI K.K.POULOUS,
NO.1245, 25TH A CROSS,
HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR-2,
BANGALORE-560 034.
7 . SRI VIKRAMAN P.MENON,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
S/O. PARAMESWARA NAIR,
NO.659, KASAVANAHALLI,
KHATHA NO.302, VARTHUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 035.
8 . SRI JEEVAN,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
-3-
S/O. VENKATARAMANAPPA,
NO.1-A, CHOLANAGARA MAIN ROAD,
R.T.NAGAR POST,
BANGALORE-560 032.
9 . M/S. KARANATAKA POWER CORPORATION
EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,
REGD. OFICE NO.29, TRADE CENTER,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
13TH CROSS, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-560 086.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
10 . MR. ANANDA RAMA AITHAL,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O. LATE SUBRAMANYA AITHAL,
MATHRU KRUPA,
NO.17/11, 2ND MAIN,
12TH CORSS, WILSON GARDEN,
BANGALORE-560 030.
11 . SRI GIREESHA AITHA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O. LATE SUBRAMANYA AITHAL,
MATHRU KRUPA,
NO.17/11, 2ND MIAN,
12TH CORSS, WILSON GARDEN,
BANGALORE-560 030.
12 . SRI B. MANOJ,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O. P.S. BALAKRISHNAN,
OLD NO.171/9, NEW NO.27,
KAVERI BAIL LAYOUT,
6TH MAIN, APPURAO ROAD CROSS,
CHAMARAJPET,
BANGALORE-560 018.
13 . SRI KALIDINDI SRIIVASA RAJU
S/O. K.V. KRISHNAM RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
FLAT NO.302, UMA SANJEEVAN RESIDENCY,
I MAIN, LAKSHMINAGAR,
-4-
J.P.NAGAR, 7TH PHASE,
BANGALORE-560 078.
14 . SRI BODHU SANTHOSH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O. LATE B. ASHOK KUMAR,
FLAT NO.301/5-8-28,
SURYODAYA APPARTMENTS,
D-FATEH SULTAN LANE,
NAMPALLI STATION ROAD,
HYDERABAD-560 001.
15 . MR. VIJU.P.V,
S/O.P.V. PANIKAR,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
NO.3, 27/7TH CROSS,
ASWINI LAYOUT, EJIPURA,
BANGALORE-560 047.
16. MR. K.C. VARGHESE,
S/O. SRI KANNAN PUZHA CHAKKUNNI,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NO.437, SWASTI, 6TH MAIN, 2ND CORSS,
HAL 3RD STAGE, WARD NO.74,
BANGALORE-560 075.
17. MR. KARAMATHUSSAIN,
S/O. LATE MR. M.D. AMANATH HUSSAIN,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
NO.73, 9TH F MAIN,
BTM I STAGE,
BANGALORE-560 029.
18 . MR. MOHAMMED ASIF
S/O. ABDUL HAFEEZ,
AGEDA BOUT 50 YEARS,
REP. BY GPA HOLDER RAHANA BEGUM,
NO.8, R. SANNAPPA BLOCK,
BENSON TOWN ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 046.
19. MEDHA A.BALIKERE,
AGED 43 YEARS,
-5-
W/O ASHOK BALIKERE,
R/AT NO.846, 2ND FLOOR, } AMENDED VIDE ORDER
5TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, M.C.LAYOUT, DATED 24.02.2015
VIJANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 056.
20. K.S.VIJAYKUMAR,
S/O K.L.SHIVANNA } AMENDED VIDE ORDER
KAIKONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, DATED 20.03.2015
BANGALORE SOUTH.
21. ELANGO B.
S/O R.BALAKRISHNAN
AGE:41 YEARS
R/AT NO.8/8, } AMENDED VIDE ORDER
EASWARAN KOVIL STREET, DATED 07.09.2017
UTHAKAMANDAPAM
COIMBATORE-641 032.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri: SANDESH KUMAR, HCGP, FOR R1 & R2,
Sri K.K.PAULOSE, ADV., FOR C/R-13, R-3, R-5, R-6,
R-12, R-13,R-15, R-19 & R-20,
SRI Y.HARIPRASAD, ADV.,FOR C/R7,
SRI.K.BHANUPRASAD, ADV., FOR C/R-10, R-11 & R-18,
SRI A.SATHISH, ADV., FOR R-9,
SRI E.V.GOPALAKRISHNAN PUTTY, ADV., FOR R-4 & R-21,
R-8, R-16, R-17 SERVICE OF NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT,
R-14 SERFVICE OF NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER ANN-A, PASSED BY THE R1, DT.6.3.14. &
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RESTORE THE LAND BEARING
OLD SY.NO.24/14, NEW SY.NO.89 OF KASAVANAHALLI
VILLAGE, MEASURING 3 ACRES IN FAVOUR OF THE
PETITIONERS.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR 'ORDERS' THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-6-
ORDER
The petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 06.03.2014 by respondent No.1, have filed this writ petition.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that:
The land bearing old Sy.No.24/14 and new Sy.No.89 measuring 03 acres situated at Kasavanahalli Village was granted in favour of Mr.Venkataramana s/o Muniya vide order 15.08.1929 for free of upset price with a specific condition that the land should not be alienated forever. On the strength of grant order, the name of Mr.Venkataramana was entered in the revenue records. In the family partition, the land in question was fallen to the share of Mr.Muniyappa s/o late Sonnappa. The petitioners belong to the scheduled caste and they are legal heirs of Muniyappa. The respondents have purchased the property in the form of sites under a registered sale deed and executed a registered sale deed in favour of the -7- respondents in the year 1993. The petitioner has filed an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'PTCL Act') in the year 2004. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the application filed by the petitioner and declared a registered sale deed executed in favour of the respondents as null and void. The respondent being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner i.e., respondent No.2 preferred an appeal before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1, vide order dated 06.03.2014, allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by respondent No.2. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.1, have filed this writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned counsel for the respondents and the HCGP.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.1 has committed an error in passing -8- the impugned order, where respondent No.1 has come to a conclusion that the respondents were not a party. The respondents ought to have remanded the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner, wherein respondent No.1 has straight away allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. He submits that the order passed by respondent No.1 is arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for contesting respondent No.1 submits that there is an inordinate delay in filing an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. He further places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs State of Karnataka and another reported in 2018(1) Kar.L.R 5 (SC). He further submits that the sale deeds were executed in the year 1993 and application was filed in the year 2004. Thus, there is a delay of 11 years in -9- filing an application. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the petition.
6. Heard and perused the records and considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties.
7. It is not in dispute that the land was granted in favour of one Venkataramana for free of upset price on 15.08.1929. The partition was effected in the family of Venkataramana. The said land was fallen to the share of said Muniyappa. It is also not in dispute that the power-of- attorney holder of the petitioners' have executed a registered sale deed in favour of the respondents in the year 1993. The petitioners have filed an application under Section 5 of PTCL Act in the year 2004. The petitioners have not shown any sufficient cause for filing an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act within a reasonable time. Thus, there is an inordinate delay of 11 years in fling an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. In view of the law laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra), the
- 10 -
application has to be filed within a reasonable time. 11 years is not a reasonable time. Hence on the ground of delay and latches, application filed by the petitioners are liable to be rejected. Though the respondents were not a party before respondent No2, respondent No2 in the absence of contesting respondents has passed an order. Even if the matte is remitted to respondent No.2 for reconsideration no purpose would serve. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (Supra), as observed above there is delay of 11 years in invoking Section 5 of the PTCL Act.
In view of the above discussion, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
- 11 -
In view of the disposal of the main petition, all pending IA's do not survive for consideration and disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE ssb