Karnataka High Court
Sri Kempadase Gowda vs The Deputy Commissioner on 2 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.25558 OF 2012 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
SRI. KEMPADASE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS
S/O LATE KEMPADASE GOWDA
@ KARAGE GOWDA,
R/O THOREKADANAHALLI,
HALAGURU HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK-571 421
MANDYA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K K VASANTH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANDYA DISTRICT
MANDYA.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MANDYA SUB-DIVISION
MANDYA.
3. SRI. MUNIHOMBALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
S/O LATE LINGAMMA AND CHANNAIAH,
2
4. SRI. HONNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
S/O LATE DADIYAIAH,
5. SRI. PUTTA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
S/O LATE DADIYAIAH,
6. SMT. RAJAMMA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
W/O LATE CHIKKA HONNA
7. SMT. HONNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
W/O LATE DADIYAIAH
8. SMT. RATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
W/O LATE DADIYAIAH
THE RESPONDENTS 3 TO 8 ARE
R/O THOREKADANAHALLI VILLAGE,
HALAGURU HOBLI,
MALAVALLI TALUK -571 421
MANDYA DISTRICT.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANDESH KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-1 AND R-2
R-4 TO R-8 SERVED UNREPRESENTED
R-3 SERVICE OF NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE
ORDER DATED 14.12.2012)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
CALL FOR RECORDS IN NO.PTCL APPEAL NO.1/2009 ON
THE FILE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA
DISTRICT, MANDYA AND ALSO THE RECORDS IN PTCL
42/1997-98 ON THE FILE OF THE ASSISTANT
3
COMMISSIONER, MANDYA SUB DIVISON, MANYDA, HEAR
THE PARTIES. AND QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 5.6.12 IN
PTCL 1/2009 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA VIDE ANNEX-G.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 05.06.2012, passed by respondent No.1, vide Annexure-G has filed this writ petition.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:
That the petitioner has purchased the agricultural land measuring 1 acre in Sy.No.104/73 situated at Banasumdra Village, Kasaba Hobli, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District from one Smt.Lingamma W/o Channaiah and her son being a minor represented by his natural guardian - mother Smt.Lingamma under a registered sale deed dated 4 08.02.1965. The petitioner has also purchased 35 guntas of land in Sy.No.104/74 situated in the same village from one Hottaiah S/o Honnaiah under a registered sale deed dated 24.08.1966.
2.1. The vendors of the petitioner have filed an applications under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ('the PTCL Act' for short) before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has allowed the applications vide orders dated 06.09.1982 and 30.08.1982.
2.2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed on the said applications, preferred an appeal before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 dismissed the appeals vide orders dated 08.05.1987 and 10.03.1987. The petitioner being aggrieved by the orders passed by respondents No.1 and 2 preferred 5 Writ Petition in W.P.No.9612/1987 and W.P.No.9613/1987 before this Court. This Court allowed the writ petitions and remitted the matter to respondent No.2, who in turn re-numbered the cases as PTCL No.38/1993-94 and PTCL No.24/1996-97.
Respondent No.2, after due enquiry allowed the applications on 30.07.1996. The petitioner being aggrieved by the orders passed by respondent No.2 preferred an appeal before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner. Though, notices were issued to the contesting respondents, in spite of service of notices respondents No.4 to 8 remained absent.
6
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has purchased the property in the year 1965-66 under two different sale deeds. The vendors of the petitioner filed an applications under Section 5 of the PTCL Act in the year 1980-81. He further submits that the application filed by the vendors of the petitioner is beyond reasonable time.
6. In order to buttress his arguments, he places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. [2020(14) SCC 232]. He further submits that respondent No.2 without considering the Limitation has proceeded to pass the impugned order. Hence he submits that the order passed by respondent No.1 is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Hence, on these grounds he prays to allow the writ petition. 7
7. Per contra, learned HCGP supports the impugned order.
8. Heard and perused the records and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
9. It is not in dispute that the said lands in Sy.No.104/73 measuring 2 acres was granted in favour of one Sri.Channaiah, that is father of respondent No.3 and in Sy.No.104/74 measuring 2 acres granted in favour of one Sri.Hottaiah i.e., father of Sri.Honnaiah by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District on 28.04.1943. Respondent No.1 made the grant permanent in favour Sri.Channaiah and Sri.Hottaiah on 01.03.1961. One Smt.Lingamma, W/o Sri.Channaiah and her son being a minor represented by natural guardian-mother, sold the land 8 in Sy.No.104/73 measuring 1 acre in favour of the petitioner under registered sale deed dated 08.02.1965 and Sri.Hottaiah, S/o Sri.Honnaiah sold the land in Sy.No.104/74 measuring 35 guntas, in favour of the petitioner under registered sale deed dated 24.08.1966. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. After coming into force of the PTCL Act, the vendors of the petitioner have filed an applications under Section 5 of the PTCL Act for declaring the registered sale deeds as null and void and for restoration of possessions. Respondent No.2 rejected the said application vide order dated 07.07.2003. The vendors of the petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.2 preferred an appeal before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 without examining the limitation aspect has proceeded to pass the impugned order.
9
10. From perusal of the records, though the sale deeds were executed in the year 1965-66, the application was filed in the year 1980-81 and the PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The application filed by the vendors of the petitioner is after lapse of more than 33 years from the date of execution of registered sale deeds. Hence, the application filed by the vendors of the petitioner is beyond reasonable time.
11. In view of the law laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI (supra), it is observed in Para No.8, which reads 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 10 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 no hesitation in upholding that the present application for restoration of land 11 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."
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, may be invoked within a reasonable time. The applications for restoration are made after 33 years it was unreasonable. Thus, on this ground alone itself, respondent No.1 ought to have dismissed the appeal, on the contrary, it has allowed the appeal. Thus, the 12 impugned order passed by respondent No.1 is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI (supra).
11. The application filed by the vendors of the petitioner is beyond reasonable time. Thus, in view of the above discussions, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned order dated 05.06.2012, vide Annexure-G passed in PTCL No.1/2009 by respondent No.1 is hereby set aside and quashed.
SD/-
JUDGE GH/GRD