Karnataka High Court
Sri Kondalappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 March, 2020
Author: H T Narendra Prasad
Bench: H. T. Narendra Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION No.523/2013 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Kondalappa
S/o late Munithimma @ Thimma,
Aged about 69 eyars,
Occ: Agriculture,
2. Sri. Ramakrishna
S/o late Munithimma @ Thimma,
Aged about 60 years,
Occ: Agriculture
3. Sri. Sampangi
S/o late Munithimma @ Thimma,
Aged about 50 years,
Occ: Agriculture
All are residents of Naduvatti village,
Kasaba Hobli, Hosakote tq,
Bangalore District.
...Petitioners
(By Sri. M.B.Chandrachooda, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
By its Secretary to the Government
Revenue Department,
M.S.Building,
Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
2
2. The Assistant Commissioner,
Doddaballapur Sub-Division,
V.V.Tower,
Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
3. The Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore Rural District,
V.V.Tower, Phodium block,
2nd Floor, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
4. Sri. R.Mallareddy,
S/o Mallareddy,
Since dead by LRs
No.4(a) Smt. Lakshmamma,
W/o Late Mallareddy,
Aged: Major,
4(b) Sri. M.Bhaskar Reddy,
S/o Late R.Mallareddy,
Aged: Major,
Respondents 4(a) & 4(b)
Are residing at No.4/1,
Muniswamappa Layout,
Vivekananda Road,
Halsoor, Bengaluru - 560 008.
5. Sri. M.Venkatareddy,
S/o Venkataramareddy,
Aged: Major,
6. Sri. Ramamanohara Reddy,
S/o Late Laxmireddy,
Aged: Major,
Respondents 4 to 6 are residing at No.2868,
M.C.Colony, Davanagere - 4.
3
7. Smt. G.Umadevi,
S/o G.K.Reddy,
Aged: Major,
8. Sri. G.Venkatareddy,
S/o Gangareddy,
Aged: Major,
Respondents 7 & 8 residents of
Kollampalli Village, Post: Kothakote,
Bagepalli Tq. Kolar District.
... Respondents
(By Smt. Savithramma, HCGP for R1-3;
V/o dated: 29/09/2016, R5-8 stands deleted;
Sri. Abhinay Y.T., Advocate for R4 (A&B) )
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 4.6.2007
passed on the file of the Asst. Commissioner, Doddaballapur
Sub Division, Bangalore vide Annexure-N and the order dated
7.11.2012 passed on the file of the Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore vide Annexure-P.
This petition coming on for Hearing, this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
This writ petition is directed against order dated 04.06.2007 passed by Assistant Commissioner and order dated 7.11.2012 passed by Deputy Commissioner produced at Annexures-N & P respectively, whereby the authorities have dismissed the application for resumption of land 4 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.36/28 measuring 2 acres situated at Samethanahalli Village, Hoskote Tq. Bangalore District was originally granted in favour of Sri. Munithimma @ Thimma under Darkasth Rules in the year 1935. Pursuant to grant, saguvali chit was issued by Tahasildar on 17.10.1935 with a condition not to alienate the property for a period of 20 years. By violating the condition, the original grantee has sold that land in favour of one Nanjappa on 06.05.1942. The Nanjappa inturn sold the land in favour of the original grantee on 10.05.1951. The original grantee in turn sold that land in favour of one Ganesh Mudaliar on 29.06.1951. Ganesh Mudaliar inturn sold the land in favour of Smt. Siddamma on 26.11.1959. Smt. siddamma sold the land in favour of original grantee-Munithimma on 19.07.1962. The 5 original grantee has sold the property in favour of Muniyappa on 20.07.1962. Muniyappa in turn sold that property in favour of Munithimma original grantee on 04.11.1970. Munithimma the original grantee has sold the property in favour of Govindappa by a registered sale deed dated 24.11.1970. Govindappa has sold the property in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 8 by a registered sale deed dated 04.03.1995. Respondent Nos.5 to 8 have sold the property in favour of respondent No.4 by registered sale deed dated 27.01.1996. The legal representatives of original grantee have filed an application under Section 4 & 5 of the Act for resumption of the land before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2004. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 04.06.2007 has rejected the application filed by the legal representatives of original grantee. Being aggrieved by the same, the legal representatives have filed an appeal under Section 5A of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner by order dated 07.11.2012 has dismissed 6 that appeal. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioners are before this Court.
3. Sri. M.B.Chandrachood, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that land was granted in favour of one Munithimma, under Darkasht Rules in the year 1935. The condition prevailing as on the date of the grant is non- alienation for a period of 20 years. By violating the condition, the original grantee has sold the land on 06.05.1942 in favour of one Nanjappa. Later the original grantee himself purchased the land and he inturn has sold the land in favour of one Govindappa on 24.11.1970. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The legal representatives of original grantee have filed an application for resumption of land. The respondent-authorities have dismissed the application contrary to the PTCL Act. He further contended that finding given by the authority that purchaser has perfected the title by adverse possession is unsustainable. The land has been sold on 24.11.1970, the 7 purchaser has to perfect his title by adverse possession against the Government by 30 years on or before 1.1.1979. Without considering this aspect of the matter, the Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned order and the same is unsustainable. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.
4. Per contra learned counsel appearing for legal representatives of respondent No.4 contended that the land was granted in favour of father of the petitioners in the year 1935. The original grantee has sold the land by violating the land grant condition on 06.05.1942. Thereafter, he himself purchased the property from the subsequent purchaser and later he sold the land in favour of one Govindappa on 24.11.1970. The PTCL Act has came into force on 01.01.1979. The legal representatives of original grantee have filed an application for resumption of the land in the year 2004. There is a delay of 25 years in filing the application for resumption of land. The application itself is 8 not maintainable. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi -v- State of Karnataka and Another reported in ILR 2018 (1) Kar. LR 5 (SC). Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. The learned Government Pleader contended that land has been granted in the year 1935. By violating the conditions of grant, the original grantee has sold the land on 06.05.1942 and same is contrary to Section 4(1) of the Act. Hence, she sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers.
7. It is not in dispute that land bearing Sy.No.36/28 measuring 2 acres situated in Samethanahalli Village, Hoskote Tq. Bangalore District was originally granted in favour of Munithimma under Darkasth Rules in the year 1935 and Saguvali chit was issued on 17.10.1935. 9 The condition prevailing as on the date of the grant is non- alienation for a period of 20 years. By violating the said condition, the original grantee has sold that land in favour of one Nanjappa on 06.05.1942. Nanjappa inturn sold the land in favour of the original grantee on 10.05.1951. The original grantee in turn sold that land in favour of one Ganesh Mudaliar on 29.06.1951. Ganesh Mudaliar inturn sold the land in favour of Smt. Siddamma on 26.11.1959. Smt. Siddamma sold the land in favour of original grantee- Munithimma on 19.07.1962. The original grantee has sold the property in favour of Muniyappa on 20.07.1962. Muniyappa in turn sold that property in favour of Munithimma original grantee on 04.11.1970. Munithimma, the original grantee has sold the property in favour of Govindappa by a registered sale deed dated 24.11.1970. Govindappa has sold the property in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 8 by a registered sale deed dated 04.03.1995. Respondent Nos.5 to 8 have sold the property in favour of respondent No.4 by a registered sale deed dated 10 27.01.1996. The PTCL Act came into force on 1.1.1979. The legal representatives of original grantee have filed an application under Section 4 & 5 of the Act for resumption of land before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2004. The application was filed after lapse of 25 years from the date of the Act came into force. The application itself is not maintainable The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra) at paragraph No.8 has held as under:
"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 11 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 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 12 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."
8. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court, the application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act for resumption of the land has to be filed within a reasonable time.
9. In the case on hand, the land was granted in the year 1935. The original grantee has sold that land in favour of one Nanjappa on 06.05.1942. Thereafter, he has repurchased the property and finally, he has sold the property in favour of one Govindappa on 24.11.1970. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The application for resumption of land under Sections 4 & 5 of the Act was filed in the year 2004. There is an inordinate and 13 unexplained delay of 25 years in invoking provisions of the Act.
In view of the above said decision of the Apex Court, the application itself is not maintainable. Hence, there is no error in the order passed by the authorities.
Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE DS/RKA