Karnataka High Court
Smt M Manjula vs The Deputy Commissioner on 4 March, 2020
Author: H T Narendra Prasad
Bench: H. T. Narendra Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION No.3149/2017 (SC - ST)
BETWEEN:
1. Smt.M.Manjula,
D/o late K.L.Muniyappa,
Aged about 42 years,
R/o No.84, 1st "D" Cross,
Nelagadaranahalli,
Bengaluru - 560 073.
2. Smt.M.Saraswathi,
D/o late K.L.Muniyappa,
Aged about 39 years,
R/o No.30, New BEML, CPRI Colony,
Bengaluru - 560 098.
3. Smt. M.Gayathri,
D/o late K.L.Muniyappa,
Aged about 36 years,
R/o No.65/1,
Adithya Provision Stores,
6th Cross, Teacher's Colony,
Nagashettyhalli,
Bengaluru - 560 094.
...Petitioners
(By Sri.Balagangadhar G.S., Advocate)
AND:
1. The Deputy Commissioner,
Bengaluru District,
2
K.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 009.
2. The Assistant Commissioner
Bengaluru, North Sub - Division,
Bangalore - 560 009.
3. The Thasildar,
Bengaluru North (Addl.) Taluk,
Yelahanka,
Bangalore - 560 064.
4. Sri.T.A.Balaji,
S/o T.Ashwathanarayana,
Aged about 46 years,
No.1309, Akshaya Nivas,
2nd Main Road,
Gandhinagar, Yelahanka,
Bangalore - 560 064.
5. Sri.V.R.Lakshminarayanashetty,
S/o Y.L.Ramaiahshetty,
Aged about 67 years,
No. 1309, Akshaya Nivas,
2nd Main Road,
Gandhinagar, Yelahanka,
Bangalore - 560 064.
... Respondents
(By Smt.Savithramma, HCGP for R1 - R3;
Sri. R.Subramanya, Advocate for R4;
R5 is held sufficient vide order dated 12.04.2017)
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the orders passed by the
R-1 dated 06.01.2016 vide Annexure - G as the same is
impugned, perverse, capricious and liable to be set aside.
3
This 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 06.01.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-G, whereby the authority has allowed the appeal filed by the purchasers by setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).
2. The case of the petitioners is that land bearing Sy. No.189 measuring 02 acres situated at Kattigenahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk was originally granted in favour of Lakshmaiah, who is grand-father of the petitioners under Darkasth Rules on 03.09.1981. Out of 02 acres, the legal representatives of original grantee have sold one acre of land in favour of Y. R. Lakshminarasimha Shetty by a registered Sale deed dated 29.03.1995. 4 Remaining one acre has been sold in favour of T.A. Balaji by a registered Sale Deed dated 29.03.1995. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The legal representatives of original grantee have filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act for resumption of land in the year 2007. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 01.04.2008 has allowed the application and resumed the land in favour of legal representatives of original grantee. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent Nos.4 and 5, who are purchasers filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5A of the Act on 13.03.2013 after lapse of 05 years from the date of order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Along with the appeal memo, they have filed an application for condonation of delay. The Deputy Commissioner by order dated 06.01.2016 has allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 5
3. Sri. Balagangadhar .G.S., learned counsel for the petitioners contended that land has been originally granted in favour of Lakshmaiah, who is grand father of petitioners under Darkasth Rules in the year 1981. The legal representatives of original grantee without obtaining the permission from the Government as per Section 4(2) of the Act have sold the land in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in the year 1995. The Assistant Commissioner has rightly allowed the application for resumption of land under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act filed by the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent Nos.4 and 5 have filed an appeal along with the application for condonation of delay before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5A of the Act in the year 2013 i.e., after lapse of 05 years from the date of order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Without passing any order on the delay application, the Deputy Commissioner has allowed the appeal. Therefore, the impugned order at Annexure-G was passed without jurisdiction and it is contrary to the provisions of Section 6 5A of the Act. Hence, he prays for allowing the writ petition.
4. Per contra, Sri. R. Subramanya, learned counsel for respondent No.4 contended that land was originally granted in favour of grand-father of petitioners after collecting the market price. He further contended that the land in dispute is not a granted land as defined under PTCL Act and the original grantee neither belongs to Scheduled Caste nor Scheduled Tribe. Hence, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly allowed the appeal. He further contended that along with the appeal memo, respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed an application for condonation of delay. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is in accordance with law. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Smt. Savithramma, learned Government Pleader for the State contended that as per Section 5-A(1-A) of the Act, the appeal has to be filed within a period of three 7 months from the date of communication of the order to the parties. In this case, no order has been passed on the delay application. Therefore, the matter requires to be remanded back for consideration of delay application. Hence, she prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition papers.
7. It is the case of the petitioners that land bearing Sy. No.189 measuring 02 acres situated at Kattigenahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk was originally granted in favour of grand-father of the petitioners i.e., Lakshmaiah under Darkasth Rules on 03.09.1981. The legal representatives of original grantee have sold the land in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 without obtaining the permission from the State as per Section 4(2) of the Act. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The legal representatives of original grantee have filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act for resumption of land 8 before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2007. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 01.04.2008 has allowed the application and resumed the land in favour of legal representatives of original grantee vide Annexure-E. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent Nos.4 and 5 have filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5A of the Act on 13.03.2013 i.e., after lapse of 05 years. Along with the appeal memo, they have filed an application for condonation of delay. As per Section 5-A(1-A) of the Act, the appeal has to be filed within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order. Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a memo dated 04.03.2020 enclosing the order sheet maintained by the Deputy Commissioner in Appeal No.SC/ST/A/149/12-13.
8. On perusal of order sheet of the Deputy Commissioner, it discloses that no order is passed on application for condonation of delay. The Deputy Commissioner without condoning the delay has passed the 9 impugner order and the same is without jurisdiction. The impugned order was passed contrary to Section 5A of the Act. Hence, the impugned order is unsustainable.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.01.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-G is set-aside. The matter is remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner to consider the same afresh on delay application by giving opportunities to the parties. If delay is condoned, the Deputy Commissioner shall decide the matter on merits without being influenced with the observations made by this Court.
All contentions of the parties are left open.
Sd/-
JUDGE MBM