Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge had erroneously passed an impugned order in favour of Respondent No.3 as a restoration under the PTCL Act, which is incorrect. The Assistant Commissioner, acting under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, forfeited the said land in favour of the Government during the year 1995 and thereafter during the year 2005, granted the said land in the name of respondent No.3 / Gowramma. The total extent of land granted in favour of father-in-law of respondent No.3 namely Kinchanna Bhovi, was 3 acres in Sy.No.30 of Kadiganahalli Village. If really it was to be restored, then the entire extent of 3 acres ought to have been restored in favour of respondent No.3. However, the Assistant Commissioner has restored only an extent of 2 acres in Sy.No.30. Therefore, the same did not amount to restoration but amounted to re-grant of land in favour of respondent No.3, during the year 2005. Therefore, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 had no right or title over the said property as on the date of filing of the appeal before Deputy Commissioner or before the KAT. These legal issues have been contended by the learned counsel seeking intervention in this appeal.

- Jadavji Nagarwala under registered sale deed dated 20.07.1976. It is also not in serious dispute that the said respondent No.4 had further purchased the remaining extent of land in survey No.30 under a registered sale deed dated 28.07.1978 executed by Sri. Narayanappa, Sri. Gurappa, Sri. Pappana and Smt. Jayamma. It is also not in serious dispute that respondent No.1 had purchased an extent of 1,01,917 sq.ft i.e approximately 2.14 guntas in survey No.30 of Kadiganahalli village from respondent No.4 under a registered sale deed dated 04.09.1978. The above said sale deeds were executed after 15 years from the date of grant and before enactment of the PTCL Act. This contention is also made by the learned counsel for the appellant, counter to the contention made by the learned HCGP for the State.

20. At a cursory glance of the material on record, it is revealed that during the year 2003-2004, that is after lapse of nearly 24-25 years, Smt. Gowramma i.e. respondent No.3 herein had filed an application to the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North, praying to set aside the sale deed executed in favour of one Sri. Prakash Babu and in turn register the property in her name, since the said sale transaction was made in violation of the provisions of The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'PTCL Act' for brevity). It is pertinent to note that respondent No.1 and Jadhavji Nagarwal herein were not at all referred in the said application and they were not made as parties. The said application was registered in case No.K.SC/ST/26/2003- 2004. It appears that the Assistant Commissioner though referred the names of respondent Nos.1 and Jadhavji Nagarwal about sale of the property to them and also noticed that respondent of the said case Mr. Prakash Babu had not purchased any portion of the property, held that the sale made in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein was in violation of the provisions of PTCL Act. Accordingly, by order dated 11.07.2005, the Assistant Commissioner cancelled or set aside the sale deeds executed in the names of V. Ramaprasad / Respondent Nos.1 and Jadhavji Nagarwal / Respondent No.4 and also in favour of one Sri. Ananda Narayana, to whom Sri.Jadhavji Nagarwal was said to have sold an extent of 10x60 feet of the land by sale deed dated 24.07.1976. The Assistant Commissioner had also directed the Revenue officers to take over the possession of the lands and hand over the same to respondent No.3 herein and also ordered to make necessary entries in the revenue records in favour of Smt. Gowramma / Respondent No.3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the said order was passed without hearing the affected person and not following the principles of natural justice. This contention is made by the learned counsel for the appellant seeking intervention of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner / Revenue Authority.

"Rule 4(4); Every appeal preferred after the expiry of the period specified in Sec. 5-A, of the Act shall be accompanied by a separate application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit sworn to by the appellant."

37. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner / Revenue Authority reveals that he has proceeded on the fallacy that PTCL Act does not prescribe any period of limitation for filing the appeal. Sec.5-(1-A) of PTCL Act extracted hereinabove prescribes the period of limitation for filing the appeal. The proviso to Sec. 5-(1-A) provides for the filing of an application to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Rule 4(4) of PTCL Rules also contains the mandatory requirement that the appeal memorandum should be accompanied by a separate application for the condonation of delay supported by an affidavit sworn to by the appellant. In the wake of the statutory requirement, the order of the Deputy Commissioner cannot but be held to be erroneous. Only on this premise and considering the grounds urged in this appeal, learned counsel prays to quash the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. However, quashing of the Deputy Commissioner's order does not mean that the Assistant Commissioner's order has attained finality.