Karnataka High Court
Smt. Devadasi Anjinamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 November, 2021
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WP No.146124/2020 C/W WP No.146122/2020 &
WP No.146123/2020 (SC/ST)
WP No.146124/2020:
Between
1. Shivanna, s/o late Jeethappa
Aged about 67 years
r/o Kudithini village
Ballari Taluk, Ballari
District - 583 115.
2. Swamy, s/o late Sri Hulugappa
Aged about 57 years
r/o Kudithini village
Ballari Taluk, Ballari
District - 583 115.
3. Smt.Sanna Durgamma
w/o late Sri Mallappa
aged about 55 years
r/o Kudithini village
Ballari Taluk, Ballari
District - 583 115
Now r/a Ananthashayanagudi
Village, Hosapete Taluk
Vijayanagara District-583225. ..Petitioners
(By Sri K Raghavendra Rao, Advocate)
2
And
1. The State of Karnataka
Department of Revenue
M S Building, Bengaluru -
560 001, Rep. by its
Principal Secretary.
2. The Assistant Commissioner
Ballari Taluk, Ballari District -
583101.
3. The Deputy Commissioner
Ballari District, Ballari -
583101.
4. The Special Land Acquisition Officer
KIADB, Industrial Area,
Lakkamanahalli, P B Road
Dharwad - 580001.
5. O Rudragouda
s/o late Sri Devendrappa
Aged Major, r/o Haraginadoni
Village, Ballari Taluk, Ballari
District - 583115. ... Respondents
(By Sri Shashank S Hegde, Advocate for R4,
Sri Umesh P Hakkarki, Advocate for R5)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to issue an order in the nature of
certiorari quashing the impugned order passed in Revision PTCL
Appeal No.41/2019-20 dated 04.03.2020, by Deputy
Commissioner Ballari i.e. respondent No.3 vide Annexure--F
confirming the order passed in Revision PTCL Case No.12/2010-
11, dated 08.08.2019, by the Assistant Commissioner, Ballari
i.e. respondent No.2 vide Annexure-D and consequently allow
the petition filed by petitioners.
3
WP No.146122/2020:
Between
Devadasi Anjinamma
d/o late Devadasi Gangamma
Aged about 55 years
r/o Kudithini village
Ballari Taluk, Ballari
District - 583 115. ..Petitioner
(By Sri K Raghavendra Rao, Advocate)
And
1. The State of Karnataka
Department of Revenue
M S Building, Bengaluru -
560 001, Rep. by its
Principal Secretary.
2. The Assistant Commissioner
Ballari Taluk, Ballari District -
583101.
3. The Deputy Commissioner
Ballari District, Ballari -
583101.
4. The Special Land Acquisition Officer
KIADB, Industrial Area,
Lakkamanahalli, P B Road
Dharwad - 580001.
5. O Rudragouda
s/o late Sri Devendrappa
Aged Major, r/o Haraginadoni
Village, Ballari Taluk, Ballari
District - 583115. ... Respondents
(By Sri Shashank S Hegde, Advocate for R4,
Sri Umesh P Hakkarki, Advocate for R5)
4
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to issue an order in the nature of
certiorari quashing the impugned order passed in Revision PTCL
Appeal No.43/2019-20 dated 04.03.2020, by Deputy
Commissioner Ballari i.e. respondent No.3 vide Annexure--F
confirming the order passed in Revision PTCL Case No.14/2010-
11, dated 08.08.2019, by the Assistant Commissioner, Ballari
i.e. respondent No.2 vide Annexure-D and consequently allow
the petition filed by petitioner.
WP No.146123/2020
Between
1. Ballari Eranna
s/o late Ballari Huluga
aged about 68 years
r/o Kudithini village
Ballari Taluk, Ballari
District - 583 115.
2. Smt.Huligemma Devadasi
d/o late Ballari Huluga
aged about 65 years
r/o Kudithini village
Ballari Taluk, Ballari
District - 583 115. ..Petitioners
(By Sri K Raghavendra Rao, Advocate)
And
1. The State of Karnataka
Department of Revenue
M S Building, Bengaluru -
560 001, Rep. by its
Principal Secretary.
5
2. The Assistant Commissioner
Ballari Taluk, Ballari District -
583101.
3. The Deputy Commissioner
Ballari District, Ballari -
583101.
4. The Special Land Acquisition Officer
KIADB, Industrial Area,
Lakkamanahalli, P B Road
Dharwad - 580001.
5. O Rudragouda
s/o late Sri Devendrappa
Aged Major, r/o Haraginadoni
Village, Ballari Taluk, Ballari
District - 583115.
6. Smt.Neelamma
w/o O Rudragouda
Aged Major, r/o Haraginadoni
Village, Ballari Taluk, Ballari
District - 583115. ... Respondents
(By Sri Shashank S Hegde, Advocate for R4,
Sri Umesh P Hakkarki, Advocate for R5)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to issue an order in the nature of
certiorari quashing the impugned order passed in Revision PTCL
Appeal No.42/2019-20 dated 04.03.2020, by Deputy
Commissioner Ballari i.e. respondent No.3 vide Annexure--F
confirming the order passed in Revision PTCL Case No.13/2010-
11, dated 08.08.2019, by the Assistant Commissioner, Ballari
i.e. respondent No.2 vide Annexure-D and consequently allow
the petition filed by petitioner.
6
These writ petitions coming on for orders this day, the
Court passed the following:
ORDER
Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is similar, they are taken up together for final disposal.
2. In WP No.146124/2020, the land bearing Sy.No.1150/D measuring 5 acres 97 cents, situated at Kudithini village, Ballari Taluk and District was granted on 29.1.1958 in favour Hanumanthappa who belonged to schedule caste community. The said land was alienated on 16.12.1969 in favour of respondent No.5.
3. In WP No.146122/2020, the land bearing Sy.No.1150/C measuring 1 acre 82 cents situated at Kudithini village, Ballari Taluk and District was granted on 29.1.1958 in favour Hanumakka, the grandmother of the petitioner, who belonged to schedule caste community. The said land was alienated on 16.12.1969 in favour of respondent No.5.
4. In WP No.146123/2020, the land bearing Sy.No.1150/E measuring 2 acres 37 cents situated at Kudithini 7 village, Ballari Taluk and District was granted on 29.1.1958 in favour Ballari Huluga, the father of the petitioners, who belonged to schedule caste community. The said land was alienated on 16.12.1969 in favour of respondent No.5. Thereafter, respondent no. 4 has acquired the land in question under section 28 of KIADB Act on 04.05.2010.
5. The petitioners filed a petition in Revenue/PTCL/12/10-11, Revenue/PTCL/14/10-11 and Revenue/PTCL/13/10-11 in WP No.146124/2020, WP No.146122/2020 and WP No.146123/2020 respectively under sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short PTCL Act) before respondent no 2- Assistant Commissioner for declaring the sale deeds dated 16.12.1969 as null and void and disburse compensation amount in favour of petitioners with respect to acquired land in question. Respondent no 2 dismissed the petition by order dated 08.08.2019. In an appeal filed by the petitioners, the respondent no 3 dismissed the appeal by order dated 04.03.2020. Hence this writ petition. 8
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the transfer of the land in question is made in violation of Section 3(1)(e) read with Section 4 of the Act. He further submitted that the period of 41 years in initiating the action for declaring the sale deeds as null and void and claiming disbursed compensation in their favour for the acquired lands in question cannot be said to be such as to amount to delay and laches as would make the action void, considering that it is in respect of beneficial legislation for the scheduled castes and scheduled tribe community. In support of his submission, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satyan - vs- Deputy Commissioner and Ors. reported in AIR 2019 SC 2797.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 submitted that the alienation of the granted land was made in favour of the respondent no. 5 by execution of the registered sale deeds dated 16.12.1969. It is further submitted that no time limit is prescribed for initiation of action under the Act, however, the same has to be initiated within a 9 reasonable time. However, the proceedings under Section 5 of the Act was initiated in 2010 i.e. after the lapse of 41 years. In support of his submission, he placed a reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi -vs- State of Karnataka and another reported in ILR 2018 Kar. 1352 and a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cheddi Lal Yadav and others -vs- Harikishore Yadav (d) thr. lrs and others reported in (2018) 12 SCC 527.
8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
9. Admittedly, in the instant case, the land in question was conveyed to the respondent no. 5 by registered sale deeds dated 16.12.1969. The Supreme Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra) while dealing with provisions of the Act has held that Section 5 of the Act neither provides for any period within which an application under the Act has to be made nor prescribes the time within which suo motu action may be initiated. It has been held that the provisions of the statute even 10 in the absence of any period of limitation must be invoked within reasonable time and the period of delay of 25 years in initiation of proceedings has been held to be unreasonable. In the instant case, the proceeding has been initiated after a lapse of 41 years. A Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.83/2020 (Muniga @ Muniyappa -vs- Sri.Balakrishna and others), where the proceeding was initiated after a period of 29 years from the date of enactment of the Act has held that the proceeding was not initiated within a reasonable time. However, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has been appreciated by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner. The proceeding initiated after a lapse of 41 years after the execution of the sale deeds cannot be said to be initiated within a reasonable time especially in the absence of any explanation in this regard.
10. In the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision relied upon by the petitioners in the case of Satyan (supra), it was held that the delay of eight years itself does not come in the way of the competent Authority taking the action, as limitation principles would not apply as observed in the case of Amrendra Pratap 11 Singh -vs- Tej Bahadur Prajapati and others reported in (2004) 10 SCC 81 para 25. However, the Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra) and Cheddi Lal Yadav (supra) has held that where the period of limitation is not prescribed, an application for restoration is to be filed within a reasonable period. In the instant case, proceeding was initiated after an inordinate delay of 41 years. Hence, the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Satyan (supra) will be of no avail. Thus, it is held that the proceedings for declaring the sale deeds as null and void which is nevertheless same as restoration of land and claiming disbursed compensation in their favour for the acquired lands in question have not been initiated within a reasonable time. With these observations, the writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkm