Karnataka High Court
G. Nagaraju vs Dy. Commissioner on 2 January, 2020
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
W.P.No.1200 OF 2012(SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
G.Nagaraju,
Aged about 66 years,
S/o late. Ganganna @ Gangaiah,
Talekoppa, Cholur Hobli,
Gubbi Taluk, Tumakuru District. ... Petitioner
(By Sri. G.M.Sharath Kumar for
Sri. G.S.Prasanna Kumar, Advocate)
AND:
1. Dy. Commissioner,
Tumakuru District, Tumakuru.
2. The Asst. Commissioner,
Tumakuru Taluk, Tumakuru Dist.
3. Chandraiah,
S/o Narasaiah,
Talekoppa, Cholur Hobli,
Gubbi Taluk, Tumakuru District. ... Respondents
(By Smt. Savithramma, HCGP. for R1 & R2:
Sri.J. Aravind Babu, Advocate for
Sri. M.Kumaraswamy and
Sri. Lakshmaiah T., Advocates for R3)
2
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order
dated: 04.11.2011 in case PTCL No.12/2005-06 vide Annexure-
C. issued by the first respondent in respect of the property in
Sy.No.131. measuring 4 Acres of Talekoppa Village, Cholur
Hobli, Tumkuru Taluk and District & etc.,
This writ petition, coming on for hearing, this day, the
Court, made the following:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 04.11.2011 (Annexure-C) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru - first respondent herein, in Appeal No.PTCL.12/ 2005-2006, confirming the order passed in Appeal No.PTCL.17/2004-05 disposed of on 19.07.2001.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the land bearing Sy.No.131 measuring 4 acres situated in Talekoppa Village, Cholur Hobli, Gubbi Taluk was originally granted in favour of one Narasaiah on 12.08.1963 under the Land Grant Rules with a condition of non-alienation, for a period of 15 years. The third respondent, who is the son of the original grantee, has sold the said land in favour of the petitioner by a registered sale deed dated 20.01.1994 (Annexure-A). Thereafter, the third 3 respondent has filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner for restoration of the land under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the PTCL Act'). After hearing the parties, the Assistant Commissioner allowed the petition filed by the legal representative of the original grantee by an order on 28.10.2004 (Annexure-B). Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein has challenged the same before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner by order dated 04.12.2004 remanded the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration. After the remand of the matter by the Deputy Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner passed an order on 19.07.2005 allowing the application filed by the legal representative of the original grantee. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein has filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru District in Appeal No.12/05-06. The Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 04.11.2011 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner confirming the order passed by the Assistant 4 Commissioner dated 19.07.2005. Being aggrieved by the same petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. Sri G.M.Sharathkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that land was originally granted to Narasaiah on 12.08.1963. The land has been granted with a condition of non-alienation for a period of 15 years. Son of original grantee has sold the land in favour of the petitioner on 20.01.1994 after non-alienation period of 15 years. The second respondent, without considering this aspect of the matter restored the land in favour of the third respondent. He has contended that the PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The land has been sold on 20.01.1994. The application for restoration has been filed in the year 2003. Therefore, there is a delay of more than nine years and in view of the law laid down by 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, the application filed by the third respondent itself is not maintainable. 5
4. Per contra, Smt.Savitramma, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri J.Aravind Babu, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 have contended that as per Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act the original grantee has to obtain permission from the State Government for alienation of the said land to the petitioner. But, without obtaining the permission the alienation has been made. Secondly, he has contended that the application for restoration of the land filed on 13.10.1997 is within a reasonable time. To support their case, they have relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of SATYAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2019 SC 2797. 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.131 measuring 4 acres situated in Talekoppa Village, Cholur Hobli, Gubbi Taluk was originally granted in favour of one Narasaiah on 12.08.1963 under the Land Grant Rules. The legal representative 6 of the original grantee has sold the said land in favour of the petitioner by a registered sale deed dated 20.01.1994. Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act is clear that no person shall, after commencement of this Act shall transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land without previous permission of the Government.
7. In the case on hand, the land has been sold after the Act came into force, by violating Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act. Hence, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have rightly passed the order restoring the land in favour of the original grantee. In respect of second contention raised by the petitioner regarding delay in filing the application under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act is concerned, the third respondent has filed an objection before this Court and along with that he has produced an application filed by the third respondent for restoration of the land on 13.10.1997. The land has been sold on 20.01.1994 and within a reasonable time the application has been filed for restoration of the land. Even the Apex Court in the case of SATYAN (supra) has held as hereinbelow:
7
"34. The period of eight (8) years cannot be said to be such, as to amount to such delay and laches as would make the action void, considering that it is in respect of a beneficial legislation for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Community."
8. In view of the above, there is no delay in filing the application under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. Hence, the second contention of the petitioner is also unsustainable.
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cm/-