Karnataka High Court
Shri K Ramanjinappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 January, 2020
Author: H T Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
W.P.No.48371 OF 2016(SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
1. Shri. K.Ramanjinappa,
Since dead by his LRs.
1(a) Smt. Sharadamma,
W/o Late. K.Ramanjinappa,
Aged about 52 years.
1(b) Smt. Padmma R.,
D/o Late K.Ramanjinappa,
Aged about 28 years.
1(c) Shri. Venkatesh R,
S/o Late. K.Ramanjinappa,
Aged about 24 years.
1(d) Smt. Bhavya R,
D/o Late. K.Ramanjinappa,
Aged about 21 years.
All are R/at Kannamangala Village
And Post, Kasaba Hobli,
Devanahalli Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District-562 110. ... Petitioners
(By Sri.Prakash T Hebbar, Advocate)
2
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Revenue Department,
5th Floor, M.S.Building,
Dr. Ambedkar Road,
Bengaluru-560 001.
Rep. by its Secretary.
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
Bengaluru Rural District,
Visveshwaraiah Towers,
Dr. Ambedkar Road,
Bengaluru-560 001.
3. The Assistant Commissioner,
Doddaballapur Sub-Division,
Doddaballapur,
Bengaluru Rural District-561 203.
4. Smt. Ramakka,
Since deceased Rep.
by her legal representatives.
Smt. Muniyamma,
D/o Chinnappa,
W/o H. Muniyappa,
Aged about 60 years,
R/at Balepura Layout,
Channarayapatna Hobli,
Devanahalli Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District-562110. ... Respondents
(By Smt. Savithramma, HCGP. for R1 to R3:
Sri.K.V.Yashwanta, Adv. for R4:
R4 is Represented by GPA Holder)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated:
3
23.07.2016 passed by the R2 Deputy Commissioner as per
Annexure-A as prayed for.
This writ petition, coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B'
group, this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER
This writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.07.2016 passed by the second respondent - Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A, wherein he resumed the land in favour of the legal representative of the original grantee.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the land bearing Sy.No.9 measuring 4 acres situated at Kempathimmanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk was granted in favour of one Munishamappa under Darkhast Rules on 26.12.1955 and saguvali chit has been issued on 27.07.1959 with a condition of non-alienation for a period of 10 years. The original grantee sold the land in favour of one Dodda Obaiah by a registered sale deed dated 05.06.1963, Dodda Obaiah in turn sold 1 acre of land 20 guntas each in favour of the petitioner under two different sale deeds dated 29.05.1995. Again on 21.06.1995 petitioner purchased an extent of 2 acres, 1 acre each, under two different 4 sale deeds. The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the PTCL Act') came into force on 01.01.1979. The legal representative of the original grantee has filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2008 under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act for resumption of land. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 30.07.2010 dismissed the application. Being aggrieved by the same, the legal representative of the original grantee filed an appeal under Section 5A of the PTCL Act. The Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 23.07.2016 has allowed the appeal resuming the land in favour of the legal representative of the original grantee. Being aggrieved by the same petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. Sri Prakash T.Hebbar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the land in dispute has been granted in favour of one Munishamappa in the year 1955. He sold the entire 4 acres of land in favour of one Dodda Obaiah in the year 1963. The petitioner purchased 3 acres of land out of 4 acres from Dodda Obaiah by four different sale deeds. From the 5 date of purchase the petitioner is in possession of the land. The legal representative of the original grantee has filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act in the year 2008 for resumption of land. The application was filed after a lapse of more than 28 years and the application itself is not maintainable. In support of his contention he has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in 2017 SCC Online SC 1862. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.
4. Per contra, Smt.Savitramma, learned Government Pleader and Sri K.V.Yashwanta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 have contended that the land in dispute has been granted in favour of one Munishamappa in the year 1955 and saguvali chit was issued in the year 1959 with a condition of non-alienation for a period of 10 years. By violating the condition, the original grantee has sold the land in the year 1963. Since he has sold the land by violating the provisions of Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act the Deputy Commissioner has 6 rightly passed an order resuming the land in favour of the legal representative of the original grantee. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers.
[
6. It is not in dispute that the land in question measuring 4 acres situated at Kempathimmanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk was granted in favour of one Munishamappa under the Darkasth Rules in the year 1955, saguvali chit was issued by the competent authority in the year 1959 with a condition of non-alienation for a period of 10 years. By violating the condition the original grantee sold the land in favour of Dodda Obaiah in the year 1963. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The legal representative of the original grantee filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act for resumption of land. The application filed after a lapse of a period of 28 years from the date the Act came into force itself is not maintainable. The Apex Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI (supra) held as hereunder:
7
"8. However, the question that arises is with regard to terms of Section 5 of the Act which enables any interested person to make an application for having the transfer annulled as void under Section 4 of the Act. This Section does not prescribe any period within which such an application can be made. Neither does it prescribe the period within which suo motu action may be taken. This Court in the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav & Ors. vs. Hari Kishore Yadav (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors., 2017(6) SCALE 459 and also in the case of Ningappa vs. Dy. Commissioner & Ors. (C.A. No. 3131 of 2007, decided on 14.07.2011) reiterated a settled position in law that whether Statute provided for a period of limitation, provisions of the Statute must be invoked within a reasonable time. It is held that action whether on an application of the parties, or suo motu, must be taken within a reasonable time. That action arose under the provisions of a similar Act which provided for restoration of certain lands to farmers which were sold for arrears of rent or from which they were ejected for arrears of land from 1st January, 1939 to 31st December, 1950. This relief was granted to the farmers due to flood in the Kosi River which make agricultural operations impossible. An application for restoration was made after 24 years and was 8 allowed. It is in that background that this Court upheld that it was unreasonable to do so. We have no hesitation in upholding that the present application for restoration of land made by respondent-Rajappa was made after an unreasonably long period and was liable to be dismissed on that ground. Accordingly, the judgments of the Karnataka High Court, namely, R. Rudrappa vs. Deputy Commissioner, 2000 (1) Karnataka Law Journal, 523, Maddurappa vs. State of Karnataka, 2006 (4) Karnataka Law Journal, 303 and G. Maregouda vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District, Chitradurga and Ors, 2000(2) Kr. L.J.Sh. N.4B holding that there is no limitation provided by Section 5 of the Act and, therefore, an application can be made at any time, are overruled. Order accordingly."
7. In the above judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has opined that to invoke the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act, the application has to be filed within a reasonable time. In the case on hand, the land was granted in the year 1955, saguvali chit was issued in the year 1959 and the land was sold in the year 1963. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979 and the application was filed in the year 2008. 9 There is an inordinate delay of 28 years in filing the application from the date the Act came into force and hence the application itself is not maintainable. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court the impugned order is unsustainable.
8. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.07.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A is quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cm/-