Karnataka High Court
Late. Munivenkatappa @ Munivenkatappa ... vs The Deputy Commissioner on 16 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.3921 OF 2014 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
1. LATE. MUNIVENKATAPPA
@ MUNIVENKATAPPA BOVI
(REPRESENTED BY HIS LR'S)
1(A) SMT. GOPAMMA
W/O LATE. MUNIVENKATAPPA
@ MUNIVENKATAPPA BOVI
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
1(B) SHRI. CHOWDAPPA
S/O LATE. MUNIVENKATAPPA
@ MUNIVENKATAPPA BOVI
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
1(C) SHRI. GOVINDAPPA
S/O LATE. MUNIVENKATAPPA
@ MUNIVENKATAPPA BOVI
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
CHIKANAHALLI MAJARA
DINNUR VILLAGE, SUGATUR HOBLI
KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.
2
1(D) SMT. CHINAMMA
W/O SRINIVASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
KASABA HOBLI, AANOOR POST
CHINTAMANI TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 563 125.
1(E) SMT. CHOWDAMMA
W/O RAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
CHANJUMALLE VILLAGE
VEMGAL HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK
KOLAR - 563 102.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GAGAN S., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. G.A. SRIKANTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOLAR DISTRICT
KOLAR - 563 102.
2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KOLAR SUB DIVISION
KOLAR - 563 102.
3 . SHRI. ALAMBAGIRI KRISHNAPPA
S/O PEDDAPPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O ALERI VILLAGE
SUGUTUR HOBLI
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 102.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANDESH KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-1 AND R-2
SRI. V VINOD REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)
3
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER DATED 4.4.1988 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE
ANN-C AND THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2013 PASSED BY
THE R-1 VIDE ANN-D AND DIRECT THE R-2 TO DECLARE
THAT THE SALE TRANSACTION DATED 19.7.1978 VIDE
ANN-L IN FAVOUR OF THE R-3 AS NULL AND VOID, AND
TO GRANT SUCH OTHER BENEFITS FOR WHICH THE
PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 04.04.1988 passed by respondent No.2, vide Annexure-C and order dated 27.11.2013 passed by respondent No.1, vide Annexure-D has filed the present writ petition.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:
That the land in Sy.No.35, measuring 2 acres situated at Chennapura Village, Sugtur Hobli, Kolar District was granted in favour of the petitioners and 4 saguvali chit was issued subject to condition that land in question shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years. The petitioner had sold the land in favour of respondent No.3 under a registered sale deed dated 19.07.1978. After the PTCL Act, came into force the petitioner filed an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ('the PTCL Act' for short) alleging that the sale transaction is in violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act, before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 after holding an enquiry rejected the application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 04.04.1988. The petitioner after lapse of 20 years preferred appeal before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 dismissed the appeal on the ground that appeal filed by the petitioner is barred by limitation. Hence, this writ petition.5
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for respondents No.1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondent No.3.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in question was granted in favour of the petitioner on 17.08.1964. He further submits that respondent No.3 purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 19.07.1978. He further submits that the Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The petitioner has filed the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, alleging that the said transaction is in violation of Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act. Respondent No.2 without considering that the petitioner belongs to Schedule Caste, has proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application. He further submits that respondent No.1 has committed an error in not properly considering the material on record and 6 dismissing the appeal. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that respondent No.2 has passed the order on 04.04.1988. The petitioner has filed the appeal before respondent No.1 after lapse of more than 20 years. Respondent No.1 dismissed the appeal on 27.11.2013. He further submits that the petitioner has not filed application for condonation of delay along with the appeal. He further submits that the petitioner did not co-operate in early disposal of appeal before respondent No.1. He further submits that inspite of granting sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, the petitioner did not argue the matter before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 has passed the order on 27.11.2013. Hence, he submits that the orders passed by respondents No.1 and 2 are just and 7 proper and do not call for interference. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.
6. Learned HCGP supports the impugned orders.
7. Perused the records and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
8. It is not in dispute that the property was granted in favour of the petitioner on 17.08.1964 and saguvali chit was issued on 11.04.1965. The petitioner had sold the said land in favour of respondent No.3 on 19.07.1978. After lapse of 8 years from the date of execution of registered sale deed, the petitioner has filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner does not belong to 8 Scheduled Caste. Hence, the PTCL Act are not applicable. The petitioner having accepted the order passed by respondent No.2 has kept quite for more than 20 years. After lapse of 20 years from the date of passing of the order by respondent No.2, the petitioner filed the appeal before respondent No.1 in the year 2008. Even before respondent No.1 the petitioner did not co-operate and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner remained absent. Respondent No.1 has recorded the conduct of the petitioner in para No.3 of the impugned order.
9. From the perusal of the records, it goes to show that the petitioner was not diligent in conducting the case and also did not prefer appeal within time. Thus, there is inordinate delay in filing the appeal. Hence, respondent No.1 was justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground that it is barred by limitation. 9
Hence, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order.
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE rs/GRD