Karnataka High Court
Arnold Edward King vs Smt S Veena on 16 January, 2020
Author: H T Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
W.P.No.10985 OF 2014 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
Arnold Edward King,
Aged about 61 years,
S/o A.H.King,
Resident of Doddapalya Gharke Gate,
N.H.7, Chickballapur Taluk,
Chickballapur District-571 313. ... Petitioner
(By Sri.V. Javahar Babu, Advocate)
AND:
1. Smt. S. Veena,
Major,
W/o Rajendra,
Residing at No.204,
C Block, Alpine Apartment,
Bellary Road, Ganganagar,
Bangalore-560 032.
2. R.Sachindran,
Major,
S/o Rajendra,
Residing at No.204,
C Block, Alpine Apartment,
Bellary Road, Ganganagar,
Bangalore-560 032.
2
3. The Assistant Commissioner,
Chickballapur Taluk,
Chickballapur District-571 313.
4. The Tahsildar,
Chickballapur Taluk,
Chickballapur District-571 313.
5. The Deputy Commissioner,
Chickballapur District,
Chickballapur-571 313. ... Respondents
(By Sri.Rajashekar B Kanavi, Advocate for R1 & R2:
Smt. Savithramma, HCGP for R3 to R5.)
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order
dated:29.06.2011 passed by the R-3 at Annexure-B & quash the
order dated:20.01.2014 passed by the R5 vide Annexure-C.
This writ petition, coming on for hearing, this day, the
Court, made the following:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 29.06.2011 passed by the third respondent and the order dated 20.01.2014 passed by the fifth respondent vide Annexures B and C, respectively, whereby the authority has restored the land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and 3 Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the PTCL Act').
2. The brief facts of the case is that the land bearing Sy.No.68 measuring 2 acres 6 guntas of Guvalakanahally Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chickballapur Taluk was originally granted in favour of one Rukminiamma under Darkast Rules on 02.09.1942. The original grantee sold the land in favour of one K.Rajendra by a registered sale deed dated 23.04.1968. The said Rajendra in turn sold the same by a registered sale deed dated 03.12.1974 in favour of his brother Chandraban Ambedkar. The legal representatives of Chandraban Ambedkar sold the land in favour of the petitioner by a registered sale deed dated 12.07.2007. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The legal representatives of the original grantee have filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act in the year 2008 for restoration of land. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 29.06.2011 has allowed the application and directed to restore the land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee. Being aggrieved by the 4 same, petitioner has filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5-A of the PTCL Act. The Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 20.01.2014 dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. Sri V.Javahar Babu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the land in dispute was originally granted in favour of Rukminiamma under the Darkast Rules on 22.08.1942. The said Rukminiamma sold the land in favour of K.Rajendra by a registered sale deed dated 23.04.1968. Subsequently, the said Rajendra sold the land in favour of Chandraban Ambedkar. The legal representatives of Chandraban Ambedkar sold the same in favour of the petitioner on 12.07.2007. The original grantee, violating the provisions of Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act sold the land in favour of Rajendra in the year 1968. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The legal representatives of the original grantee have filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act in the year 2008. 5 There is an inordinate delay of 28 years in filing the application. The application filed by the legal representatives of the original grantee itself is not maintainable. In support of his contention he has relied on 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 petition.
4. Per contra, Sri Rajashekar B.Kanavi, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Smt.Savitramma, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to 5 contended that the land was originally granted in favour of Smt.Rukminiamma under Darkast rRles on 28.08.1942 with a condition of non-alienation for ever. The original grantee by violating the condition sold the land in favour of K.Rajendra by a registered sale deed dated 23.04.1968. Since the sale is contrary to the provisions of Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act, the authorities have rightly allowed the application filed under Section 4 of the PTCL Act and restored the land in favour of the 6 original grantee. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers.
6. It is not in dispute that the land bearing Sy.No.68 measuring 2 acres 6 guntas of Guvalakanahally Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chickballapur Taluk was originally granted in favour of Rukminiamma on 22.08.1942. The said Rukminiamma sold the land in favour of one K.Rajendra in the year 1968 who in turn sold the same in favour of Chandraban Ambedkar in the year 1974 and the legal representatives of Chandraban Ambedkar sold the land in favour of the petitioner by a registered sale deed dated 12.07.2007. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The legal representatives of the original grantee have filed an application for restoration of the land in the year 2008. There is a delay of 28 years in filing the application. The Apex Court in the case of NEKKANTI (supra) has held as hereinbelow:
"8. However, the question that arises is with regard to terms of Section 5 of the Act which enables any 7 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 allowed. It is in that background that this Court upheld that it was unreasonable to do so. We have 8 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 clearly held that the application for restoration of the land under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act has to be filed within a reasonable time. In the case on hand, the application was filed after 28 years from the date the PTCL Act came into force and there is unreasonable delay in filing the application. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case, the application itself is not maintainable. 9
8. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.06.2011 passed by the third respondent vide Annexure-B and the order dated 20.01.2014 passed by the fifth respondent vide Annexure-C are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cm/-