Karnataka High Court
Muniyappa S/O Narayanappa (Late) vs N Achappa on 3 August, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION No.11812 OF 2008 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
1. MUNIYAPPA
S/O NARAYANAPPA(LATE)
CHICKBALLAPUR.
2. CHIKKANARAYANAPPA
SINCE DEAD REP. BY HIS LRS
SRIRAMA, S/O.CHIKKANARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38YEARS,
CHICKBALLAPUR
3. NARAYANAPPA
SINCE DEAD REP. BY HIS LR
RAMAKRISHNAPPA,
S/O. NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
CHICKBALLAPUR.
4. RAMAKKA
W/O. DODDANARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOTU 55 YEARS,
CHICKBALLAPUR.
5. CHANDRAPPA
S/O. MUNISHYAMI (LATE)
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
CHICKBALLAPUR.
2
6.. SAADAMMA,
W/O MUNIYAPPA
SINCE DEAD,REP. BY HER LR,
M SRINIVAS
IS DEAD , REP. BY HIS LRS.
6(a). SMT. MALATHI
W/O LATE SRINIVASA.M,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
6(b). SRIDHAR.S
S/O LATE SRINIVASA.M,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
6(c) CHETHAN.S
S/O LATE SRINIVASA.M,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
6(d) NAVEEN KUMAR C.S
S/O LATE SRINIVASA.M,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF WARD NO.30,
AMBEDKAR NAGAR,CHAMRAJPET,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN-562 101.
7. MUNIYAPP A
S/O. VENKATAPPA (LATE)
SINCE DEAD REP. BY HIS LRS.
7(a) SMT. VENKATAMMA
W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA M.V
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RESIDING AT WARD NO.29,
SHIDLAGHATTA ROAD, CHAMARAJPET,
CHIKKABALLAPURA- 562 101.
3
7(b) SMT. PARVATHAMMA
D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA M.V
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
RESIDING AT SOMPURA
HOSAKOTE TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 562 114.
7(c ) SRI. GOVINDAPPA M
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA M.V
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
RESIDING AT WARD NO.30,
AMBEDKAR NAGAR,
CHIKKABALLAPURA- 562 101.
7(d) SRI.GIRISH
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA M.V
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
RESIDING AT WARD NO.29,
SHIDLAGHATTA ROAD,
CHAMARAJPET,
CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 101.
8. VENKATARAYAPPA
SINCE DEAD REP. BY HIS LR
GANGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
CHICKBALLAPUR.
9. VENKATASWAMY
SINCE DEAD.REP.BY HIS LR
9(a) JAYAMMA
W/O MUNINARASIMHAIAH
D/O LATE VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RESIDING AT WARD NO.30,
AMBEDKAR NAGARA,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN-562 101.
4
9(b) VENKATESHAPPA
S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RESIDING AT WARD NO.30,
AMBEDKAR NAGARA,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN-562 101.
9(c ) SRINIVAS
S/O LATE OBALESH,
S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
RESIDING AT WARD NO.30,
AMBEDKAR NAGARA,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN-562 101.
9(d) NARAYANASWAMY
S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
RESIDING AT WARD NO.30,
AMBEDKAR NAGARA,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN-562 101.
10. VENKATAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS.
10(a) N. SRINIVAS
S/O NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT WARD NO.30,
AMBEDKAR NAGARA,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN-562 101.
10(b) VENKATESHAMMA
D/O NARAYANAPPA
MAJOR IN AGE
RESIDING AT WARD NO.30,
AMBEDKAR NAGARA,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN-562 101.
5
11. MUNIYAPPA
S/O NARASIMHAYYA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
CHAMARAJPET,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN,
CHIKKABALLAPUR.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA B. HARAVIGOUDAR,
ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER 1 AND 11,
SRI.L. VIJAYKUMAR.,ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER-6
TO 8 AND 9(A-D) AND 10(A &B),
PETITION STAND ABATED AS AGAINST PETITIONER -
2 TO 5, 9 & 10 V/O DATED 04/02/2020.)
AND
1. N.ACHAPPA
SINCE DEAD REP. BY HIS LRS
1(a) SMT. SUNDAAMMA
W/O LATE N.ACHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
1(b) SRI. A HARISH KUMAR
S/O LATE N.ACHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
1(c) SRI.A. BABU
S/O LATE N. ACHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
1(d) SRI. A PARTHASARATHY
S/O LATE N.ACHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
6
THE RESPONDENTS 1(a) TO (d)
ARE RESIDING AT AJJAVARA VILLAGE,
NANDI HOBLI,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT- 562 101.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHIKKABALLAPURA,
CHIKKABALLAPUR.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT,
CHICKABALLAPUR
(BY SRI. K.H. SOMASHEKARA., ADVOCATE
FOR R-1(a) TO (d),
MS. ANITHA.N., HCGP FOR R-2 AND 3)
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUNGED ORDER REGARDING DISALLOWING THE CLAIM
OF THE PETITIONERS PASSED BY THE ASST.
COMMISSIONER IN CASE NO.1/96-97 AND DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLAPUR IN CASE NO.16/07-08
VIDE ANN-A, AND B DT.27.4.1998 AND 9.6.2008 AND
ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONERS AS PRAYED FOR.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
7
ORDER
The subject land was granted to the petitioners on 15.11.1956 who belongs to SC community and the petitioners sold the subject land in favour of one Sri.Veerannagowda by executing a registered sale deed dated 01.04.1970 and in turn he sold the said land in favour of one Sri.Munivenkataswamy by executing a registered sale deed dated 12.01.1989. Thereafter, respondent No.1 purchased the said land through a registered sale deed dated 06.07.1990.
2. Such being the case, the petitioners filed an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'the Act') for resumption and restoration of the subject land in the year 1996 before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner concerned by order dated 27.04.1998 rejected the application filed by the petitioners on the ground that the subject land was purchased by respondent 8 No.1 and his vendor after expiry of the period of alienation imposed in the grant. The said order was challenged by the petitioners in appeal under Section 5(3) of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner concerned dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner against which the present petition is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners' submit that the subject land was sold within the alienation period of 15 years and as such, the subject land was not sold in violation of the conditions contained in the grant order and as such, the petitioners are entitled for resumption and restoration of the land in their favour, hence the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 and 3 is contrary to the provisions contained in the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978('PTCL Act' for short) and the same requires to be quashed.
9
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submits that the application files by the petitioners under section 5 of the PCTL Act was filed after an inordinate delay of more than 17 years from the date of commencement of the PTCL Act without offering a plausible action. Hence, he submitted that the application submitted by the petitioners is not maintainable in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER, ILR 2018 KAR 1352. He further submits that the subject land was sold after expiry of 10 years from the date of grant and the same was not in violation of the conditions contained in the grant. Hence, he submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent authorities does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. I have examined the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
10
6. The PCTL Act came into effect from the year 1978. The application under section 5 of the PTCL Act was filed in the year 1996 and the first sale of the subject land was effected in the year 1970. Section 5 of the PTCL Act does not prescribe the time limit for initiation of action under the Act. However, the same has to be initiated within a reasonable time and in the instant case, the same was initiated after a period of 17 years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI supra while dealing with the provisions of the PTCL Act has held section 5 neither does prescribes any period within which an application is to be made nor does it prescribes the time within which suo-moto action may be initiated. It has been held that the provisions of the statute, in the absence of any period of limitation, must be invoked within that reasonable time and the period of delay of 25 years in initiation of the proceedings has been held to be unreasonable. In the present case, the initiation of the proceedings was after more than 17 years from the date of commencement of the PTCL Act and the same 11 cannot be said to be initiated within a reasonable time especially in the absence of any explanation in that regard. Thus it is held that the proceedings for restoration of the land in question have not been done within reasonable time.
7. Even otherwise, the petitioners have not produced any material before the respondent authorities to substantiate their claim that the land in question is a granted land as defined under section 3 of the PTCL Act. The respondent authorities taking into account that the subject land was not sold in violation of the grant order has rightly passed the impugned order and the same does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the petition is devoid of merit and the same stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE GRD/MN