Karnataka High Court
Shri Papanna vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 March, 2022
Bench: Alok Aradhe, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A.No.1054/2021
BETWEEN:
SHRI PAPANNA
S/O. SADAPPA,
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS,
1. VENKATAMMA
W/O LATE PAPANNA,
AGE: MAJOR, 70
2. MUNIYAPPA
S/O. LATE. PAPANNA,
AGE: MAJOR, 55
3. RAMAKKA
D/O. LATE. PAPANNA,
AGE: MAJOR, 39
4. MALLAMMA
W/O. LATE. PAPANNA,
AGE: MAJOR, 60
5. MANKALAPPA
S/O. LATE. PAPANNA,
AGE: MAJOR, 41
6. SHASHIKALA
D/O. LATE. PAPANNA,
AGE: MAJOR, 38
2
APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 6 ARE
R/O.BANDAPURA VILLAGE,
MARASURA POST,
KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGLAURU DISTRICT - 562106. ... APPELLANTS
(By Sri Chava Hanumanth Rao, Adv. for
Sri Vishwanath H.M., Adv.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGLAURU 560001.
2. THE TAHSILDAR,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT -562106.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION,
BENGALURU - 560001.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU DISTRICT,
BENGALURU - 560001.
5. SRI JAYARAM REDDY
S/O. LATE. SIDDA REDDY,
AGE 62 YEARS,
6. SRI NARAYANA REDDY
S/O. LATE. T VENKATASWAMY REDDY,
AGE 66 YEARS ,
7. SRI MUNIREDDY
S/O. LATE. VENKATASWAMY REDDY,
AGE 69 YEARS,
8. SRI THIMMA REDDY
S/O. LATE. T VENKATASWAMY REDDY,
AGE 66 YEARS ,
3
RESPONDENTS 5 TO 8 ARE
R/O. BANDAPURA VILLAGE,
MARASURA POST, KASABA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TLAUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562106. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri Aravind M. Negalur, Adv. for C/R.5;
Smt. Vani.H., AGA for R1 to R4)
This writ appeal is filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the order
dated 09.08.2021 passed by the Learned Single Judge in WP
No.34038/2018 (SC-ST).
This appeal coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day,
Vishwajith Shetty J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
1. The instant writ appeal is filed by the legal representatives of the original grantee challenging the order dated 09.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.34038/2018.
2. The parties are referred to by the rank assigned to them in the writ petition.
3. Facts of the case as revealed from the records are, the land bearing Sy. No.217 measuring 2 acres situated at Madivala village, Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk, was granted to 4 late Sadappa in the year 1959. Sadappa sold one acre of land in Sy. No.217 under a registered sale deed dated 08.09.1960 and a further extent of 19 guntas under a registered sale deed dated 31.12.1962 in favour of one Sidda Reddy who is the father of the petitioners herein. Under a registered sale deed dated 31.12.1962, the original grantee also sold 14 guntas of land in Sy. No.217 in favour of one Venkataswamy Reddy.
4. Respondents claiming to be the legal representatives of the original grantee had filed an application for restoration of the aforesaid land under Section 5-A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'PTCL Act'), on the ground that the alienations were hit by Section 4 of the PTCL Act.
5. The Assistant Commissioner ordered for restoration of the land in dispute in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee and the said order was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein had filed W.P.No.34038/2018 which was 5 allowed by this Court vide order dated 09.08.2021 and the order dated 06.06.2018 and 06.12.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner, respectively, were quashed. It is under these circumstances, the legal representatives of the original grantee are in appeal.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the sale has taken place within the prohibited period, and therefore, the same is hit by Section 4 of the PTCL Act. He submits that the PTCL Act is a Special Enactment, and therefore, the said Act has got a overriding effect over the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. He also submits that since the sale is hit by Section 4 of the PTCL Act, mere delay in filing the restoration application will not come in the way of the legal representatives of the original grantee being granted any relief under the provisions of the PTCL Act as the said Act is a beneficial legislation.
7. We have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the appellants and also perused the material available on record.
6
8. The undisputed facts of the case are, that the land in dispute have been sold to the father of the petitioners under two sale deeds dated 08.09.1960 and 31.12.1962, respectively. Though the PTCL Act has come into force with effect from 01.01.1979 itself, the application for restoration under Section 5-A of the PTCL Act, has been filed by the legal representatives of the original grantee only in the year 2006-
07.
9. The learned Single Judge taking into consideration that there was a delay of nearly 27 years in filing the application for restoration by the legal representatives of the original grantee, in the background of the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER - (2020)14 SCC 232 and VIVEK M.HINDUJA VS M.ASWATHA - (2019)1 Kant LJ 819 SC, has held that since the application for restoration has not been filed within a reasonable period, the application itself was not maintainable, and accordingly, has set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 06.12.2013 and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 06.06.2018.
7
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases has held that action for restoration whether on an application of the parties or suo motu must be taken within a reasonable time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NINGAPPA VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & OTHERS - (2020)14 SCC 236, has declined to entertain the application for restoration which was submitted after nine years. In the present case, the application for restoration has been filed after 27 years of the PTCL Act coming into force. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition holding that the application for restoration was not filed within a reasonable time.
11. The contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the PTCL Act is a Special Enactment and the same has got a overriding effect over the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and the judgments relied upon by him in support of this contention of his, has been considered by the learned Single Judge and he has rightly held that the judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Under these circumstances, we do not find any irregularity or 8 illegality in the orders passed by the learned Single Judge which calls for interference. Accordingly, we decline to entertain this writ appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE KK