Karnataka High Court
Sri Chikkabovi vs Sri C Y Shivegowda 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.1017/2021
BETWEEN:
SRI CHIKKABOVI,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
1(A) SIDDARAMA
S/O LATE SRI CHIKKABOVI
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
1(B) KANNAIAH
S/O LATE SRI CHIKKABOVI
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
1(C) RAJU
S/O LATE SRI CHIKKABOVI
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
1(D) SRINIVASA
S/O LATE SRI CHIKKABOVI
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT LINGAMBUDIPALYA
JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK,
MYSURU - 570 021. ... APPELLANTS
(By Sri Bhargav.G., Adv.)
2
AND:
1. SRI C. Y. SHIVEGOWDA
S/O LATE VYKUNTEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT NO.38,
USA RESIDENCY J.C.S.T.
'M' BLOCK, ADICHUNCHANAGIRI ROAD,
KUVEMPUNAGAR
MYSURU - 560 021.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSORE DISTRICT,
MYSORE - 570 021.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MYSORE SUB DIVISION
MYSORE - 570 021. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri Vikram Huilgol, Sr. Counsel for
Sri Sangamesh, R.B., Adv. for C/R R1;
Smt. Vani.H., AGA, for R2 & R3)
This writ appeal is filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the impugned
order passed by the learned single judge of this Hon'ble
Court, dated 22.07.2021 vide W.P. No.30459/2015 (SC/ST),
consequently dismiss the writ petition as prayed for, in the
interest of justice and equity.
This appeal coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day,
Vishwajith Shetty J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
1. The legal representatives of the original grantee has filed this intra court appeal challenging the order dated 3 22.07.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.30459/2015.
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 that the land bearing Sy. No.311 measuring 3 acres situated at Kergalli village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysuru Taluk, was granted to respondent no.3 on 01.10.1980 and under a registered sale deed dated 14.03.1997, the petitioner had purchased the said land from respondent no.3. On the ground that the sale was hit by Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'PTCL Act'), an application for restoration of the land in question was filed by respondent no.3 on 29.05.2006. The Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 28.02.2011 had allowed the said application and restored the land in question in favour of the original grantee and the said order was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner vide his order dated 09.06.2015. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.30459/2015 before this Court and 4 the said writ petition was allowed by the order impugned herein and the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner on 28.02.2011 and 09.06.2015, respectively, were quashed. Being aggrieved by the same, the legal representatives of respondent no.3 are in appeal.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the sale has been made after the PTCL Act coming into force without prior permission of the Government, and therefore, the said transaction is hit by Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act. He submits that the learned Single Judge was not justified in setting aside the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner only on the ground that there has been a delay caused in filing the restoration application.
5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that having regard to the judgments of 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 5 SC, the learned Single Judge was fully justified in allowing the writ petition as the application for restoration has been filed after a period of nine years from the date of the sale deed. He, accordingly, prays to dismiss the writ appeal.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NEEKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI'S case and VIVEK M.HINDUJA'S case supra, has clearly held that any action either on the application of the grantee or the legal representatives of the grantee or suo motu for restoration of the lands in favour of the grantee or his legal representatives is required to be made within a reasonable period.
7. In the case on hand, admittedly, the sale was made on 14.03.1997 and the application for restoration has been filed only in the year 2006. Therefore, there has been a delay of about nine years in filing the application for restoration. The learned Single Judge taking into consideration the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of NINGAPPA VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & OTHERS - (2020)14 SCC 236, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had declined to entertain the application for restoration which was submitted after nine years and also 6 taking into consideration the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.16/2021, has held that the application filed for restoration even in the present case is not within a reasonable period, and therefore, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner were not justified in entertaining the said application and restoring the lands to the original grantee. In our considered opinion, the said order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity, and therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE KK