Karnataka High Court
Sri Munieerappa vs The State Of Karanataka on 4 February, 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 FEBRURAY 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
W.P.Nos.43410-43412 OF 2011(SC-ST)
& W.P.Nos.43413-43414 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Munieerappa,
S/o Late. Chikkeerappa,
Aged 55 years.
2. Sri. Kaverappa,
S/o Late. Chikkeerappa,
Aged 52 years.
3. Sri. Krishnappa,
S/o Late. Chikkeerappa,
Aged 49 years.
4. Sri. Rajappa,
S/o Late. Chikkeerappa,
Aged 47 years.
5. Sri. C. Ramesh,
S/o Late. Chikkeerappa,
Aged about 44 years.
All are residing at Immadihalli Village,
K.R.Puram Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk. ... Petitioners
(By Sri.B.Ramesh, Advocate)
2
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Revenue Department,
Vidhana Soudha,
Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore-560 001.
Represented by its Secretary.
2. Special Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore District,
Bangalore-560 009.
3. Assistant Commissioner,
Bangalore North Sub-Division,
Bangalore-560 009.
4. Sri. M.J.Varghese,
S/o M.V.Jhon, Major,
No.255, Manila Bethel,
Doddakannahalli,
Carmelram Post,
Bangalore-560 035.
5. Smt. Hemambika,
W/o Venugopal, Major,
No.50/2, III rd Cross,
Papayya Layout,
Near Devamatha School,
Horamavu, Bangalore-560 043.
6. Sri. A.Philip Irudayanathan,
S/o A.Antony, Major,
No.4, Krishnappa Building,
1st Floor, Rama Temple Road,
Opp:Bajane Koil, Viveknagar Post,
Ejipura, Bangalore-560 047.
3
7. Sri. Vidhyadharan,
S/o Gopalankuti Nair,
Major,
Chikkatayappa Compound,
Room No.5, Ist Cross,
Ejipura, Bangalore-560 047.
8. Smt. Sridevi K.S.
W/o K.Diwakar Nair,
Major,
No.7, Sri Rajinivas,
Pappaiah Layout,
Near Devamatha Centre School,
Horamavu, Kalyan Nagar,
Bangalore-560 043.
9. Smt. Shaily P.V.,
D/o P.V. Varkey, Major,
No.31, 21st Cross,
Bhuchappa Road,
Ejipura, Bengaluru-560 047.
10. Sri. L.Devasagayam,
S/o Lourdunathan,
Major,
No.10, 22nd Cross,
Ejipura Main Road,
Bangalore-560 047.
11. Sri.Rajesh P.
S/o Late. Chandrakaladharan,
Major,
Shoba Electrical,
1st Cross, Ejipura Main Road,
Bengaluru-560 047.
12. Sri. Peter V Thjoppil,
S/o T.U.Varied, Major,
Hills Refrigeration,
4
No.44, Behind Shiva Theatre,
8th Block, Koramangala,
Bengaluru-560 095.
13. Sri. Haward Joseph,
S/o V.M.Joseph, Major,
No.1763, 15th Cross,
23rd Main, Singasandra,
Bangalore-560 068.
14. Smt. Sujimol Haward,
W/o Haward Joseph, Major,
No.1673, 15th Cross,
23rd Main, Singasandra,
Bangalore-560 068.
15. Sri. Pradeep Nelambaran,
S/o Late Nelambaran,
Major, No.3 D, 4th 'A' Cross,
Maruthinagar, Madivala,
Bangalore-560 068.
16. Sri. R.Suresh Kumar,
S/o K.P. Bhaskaran Nair,
Major,
Flat No.110, Crystal Halight,
Belandur Post,
Sarjapur Road,
Belandur Gate,
Bangalore-560 037.
17. Sri. Roy Jocob,
S/o P.S.Jocab,
Major,
No.1/4527-A, Devinagar Colony,
Bilathikulam, Eranhipalam,
Calicut-673 006.
5
18. Sri.M.Vinod Manikkath,
S/o Dr.T.H.Nair,
Major,
No.498,1st Main, K.R.Garden,
Murgeshpalya, Bangalore-560 047.
19. Dr. T.S.Nair,
S/o T.K.Narayana Menon,
Major.
20. Smt. Rathanavalli,
W/o Dr.T.S.Nair,
Major.
Respondents No.19 & 20 are
Residing at No.498,
1st Main K.R.Garden,
Murgeshpalya
Bangalore-560 047.
21. Sri. Sanjeev Kumar.N.,
S/o N.Kumaran,
Major,
No.231, Sri.Venkateshwara Nilayam,
1st Main, IInd Cross,
IVth Block, HBR Layout,
Kalyan Nagar, Bangalore-560 043.
22. Smt. Mexy Roni,
W/o Roni Anthony,
Major,
No.24, 1st Main, 'A' Cross,
Brindavan Estate,
Vignananagar, Marathahalli,
Bangalore-560 037.
23. Sri. Roni Anthony,
S/o M.K.Anthony,
Major,
6
No.24, 1st Main, 'A' Cross,
Brindavan Estate,
Vignananagar, Marathahalli,
Bangalore-560 037.
24. Sri. Roy George,
S/o George Luke,
Major,
No.13, Srinidhi Nilaya,
1st Cross, III rd Main,
LL Reddy Colony,
Vignananagar, Bangalore-560 037.
25. Sri. Idison,
S/o S Irudayaraj,
Major,
No.85, IIIrd Cross,
KSFC Layout,
Lingarajpuram, Bangalore-560 084.
26. Sri. Joseph Oilvar,
S/o Louis Pillai,
Major,
No.85, IIIrd Cross,
KSFC Layout,
Lingarajpuram, Bangalore-560 084.
27. Sri. Jhon Philipose,
S/o K.G.Philipose,
Major.
28. Smt. Annama Philip @ Lessy Jhon,
W/o Jhon Philipose,
Major.
Respondents No.27 & 28 are
Residing at No.5/3, Munireddy Building,
Doddakanahalli, Carmelram Post,
Bangalore-560 035.
7
29. V.K.Varghese,
S/o Late. Kurien,
Major,
No.102, Prachas Layout,
Doddkanahalli, Carmelram Post,
Sarjapur Road, Bangalore-560 035.
30. Sri. Thomas Mathew,
S/o Thomas
Major,
Kinath Khrayil House,
Gurunandan Mannvi Post,
Mundanapura, Seethathodu,
Pathanthitta District,
Kerala State.
31. V.C.Thomas,
S/o Late. V.P.Chaku,
Major,
Suryalayam, 12th Cross,
Anepalyam, Bangalore-560 030.
32. Smt. Shaima Jai Son,
W/o Jai Son C.A.,
Major,
No.2, 5th Cross,
Annepalaya, Bangalore-560 030.
33. Sri. Mohammed Siraj,
S/o Haji.M.K.Ahmed Kuti,
Major,
No.194, The New Stop,
Brigade Road, Bangalore-560 001.
34. Sri. Shaji Kumar B.,
S/o Bhaskaran.N,
Major,
No.5/3, Munireddy Building,
8
Doddalanahalli,
Carmelram Post,
Bangalore-560 035.
35. Sri. Mangala Raj M.S.,
S/o Sami Kuti,
Major,
No.C.82/3, 14th 'B' Cross,
Mangamapalya,
Bengaluru-560 068.
36. Sri.Devasia Kurian,
S/o V.D.Kurian,
Major,
No.218, HSR Layout,
Ring Road, Agrah,
Bangalore-560 034.
37. Sri. Jose Kurian,
S/o V.D.Kurian,
Major,
No.218, HSR Layout,
Ring Road, Agrah,
Bangalore-560 034.
38. Sri. Shaji Verghese,
S/o K.M.Verghese,
Major,
IInd Main, 4th Cross,
Lalbhadur, Shastri Nagar,
HAL Post, Bangalore-560 017.
39. Sri. Abhram Philip,
S/o Thomas Philip,
Major,
No.129, Doddakanahalli,
Carmelram Post,
Bangalore-560 035.
9
40. Sri. P.R. Ramachandra Kumar,
S/o Late. P.L.Ranganathan,
Major,
New No.278(old No.209),
Paper Mills Road,
Peravallur, Permbur,
Chennai-600 011. ... Respondents
(By Smt. Shilpa S Gogi, HCGP for R1 to R3:
Smt. Sadhana, Advocate, for
Sri.J.C.Kumar, Advocate for R4 to 15,
R17 to R27 & R29 to 40:
R16 & R28 are served)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order
dated:29.04.2011 passed in KSC ST (Appeal) No.11/07-08
passed by the R2 vide Annexure-G.
These writ petitions, coming on for hearing, this day, the
Court, made the following:
ORDER
These writ petitions are directed against the order dated 29.04.2011 passed by the second respondent vide Annexure-G, wherein he has allowed the appeal filed by the purchasers under Section 5-A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the PTCL Act').
10
2. The brief facts of the case are that the land bearing Sy.No.22 measuring 2 acres of Sulikunte Village, Varthur Village, Bangalore East Taluk was originally granted in favour of one Chikkeerappa and saguvali chit has been issued on 07.12.1954 with a condition of non-alienation for a period of 20 years. By violating the grant conditions, the original grantee sold the land in favour of one Balakrishna by a registered sale deed dated 27.03.1961. The said Balakrishna in turn sold the land in favour of one Chikkamuniyappa under a registered sale deed dated 08.07.1963 and the said Chikkamuniyappa in turn sold the land in favour of one M.J.Varghese on 05.04.2004. After purchasing the property Varghese formed the layout and sold the sites in favour of respondent Nos. 4 to 40 herein. 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 PTCL Act for resumption of the land in the year 2005. The Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 06.10.2006 allowed the application and resumed the land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondents herein have filed an appeal before the 11 Special Deputy Commissioner under Section 5-A of the PTCL Act and the Special Deputy Commissioner by order dated 29.04.2011 has allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the grantee has failed to prove that it is a granted land and he has not produced any documents to establish the same. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners have filed these writ petitions.
3. Sri B.Ramesh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the land in dispute has been originally granted in favour of father of the petitioners under Dharkasth Rules. The same is evident from the saguvali chit issued by the competent authority on 07.12.1954 vide Annexure-B with a condition of non-alienation for a period of 20 years. By violating the condition the father of the petitioners who is the original grantee has sold the land in favour of one Balakrishna by a sale deed dated 27.03.1961. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1079. The legal representatives of the original grantee have filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2005 for 12 resumption of land. The Assistant Commissioner has rightly resumed the land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondents herein have filed an appeal. The petitioners have furnished relevant materials to show that the land in dispute is a granted land and it has been sold by violating the conditions of the grant. The Deputy Commissioner, contrary to the materials available on record has allowed the appeal. Hence, he sought for allowing the petitions.
4. Per contra, Smt.Shilpa S.Gogi, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Smt.Sadhana, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 15, 17 to 27 and 29 to 40 contended that on perusal of the original records the Deputy Commissioner has held that the legal representatives of the original grantee have failed to prove that it is a granted land. Secondly, they contended that even though it is assumed that it is a granted land the land has been sold in the year 1961, the PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979, the application under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act for resumption of land was filed 13 in the year 2005, there is a delay of 26 years in fling the application. Hence, the application itself is not maintainable. In support of his contention he has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme 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 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 in question measuring 2 acres was originally granted in favour of one Chikkaeerappa. The same is evident from saguvali chit extract vide Annexure-B dated 07.12.1954. The original grantee in turn sold the land in favour of one Balakrishna in the year 1961, who in turn sold the land to one Chikkamuniyappa in the year 1963 and the said Chikkamuniyappa in turn sold the land in favour of Varghese in the year 2004. Varghese has formed a layout and sold the sites in favour of respondents 4 to 40. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979., the application filed by the legal representatives 14 of the original grantee under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act before the Assistant Commissioner is in the year 2006 and there is a delay of 26 years in filing the application for resumption of land. The Apex Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI (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 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 15 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 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."16
7. It is very clear from the above decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court that the application for resumption of land under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act has to be filed within a reasonable time. In the case on hand land was granted in the year 1954 and the original grantee sold the land in the year 1961 by violating the conditions of grant and provisions of Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act. Application for resumption of land is filed in the year 2005 and there is an inordinate delay of 26 years in filing the application. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court the application filed by the original grantee itself is not maintainable.
8. Accordingly, writ petitions are devoid of merit and hence, they are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cm/-