Karnataka High Court
Smt Basamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 December, 2021
Bench: Ashok S.Kinagi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK.S.KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.10609/2012 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT BASAMMA
W/O LATE B P SHANTAPPA
AGED ABOUIT 58 YEARS
2. SRI B S KUMAR
SON OF LATE B P SHANTAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
3. SMT DAKSHAYANI
DAUGHTER OF LATE B P SHANTAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
4. SRI PRASAD
SON OF LATE B P SHANTAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
BETTAHALASUR VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PUNITH C, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. P.M. GOPI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
2
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M S BUILDING
BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
BANGALORE-560 009.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION
VISHWESWARAIAH TOWERS
BANGALORE-560001.
4. SRI MUNISWAMAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
4(A) SMT. NARASAMMA
WIFE OF LATE DODDAMUNISHAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
4(B) SMT. NANJAMMA
WIFE OF LATE DODDAMUNISHAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
4(C) SMT. AKKAYAMMA
DAUGHTER OF LATE DODDAMUNISHAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
4(D) SMT. CHANNAMMA
DAUGHTER OF LATE DODDAMUNISHAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
4(E) SRI. MANJUNATH
SON OF LATE DODDAMUNISHAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
THARAHUNASE VILLAGE
3
JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M SANDESH KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3
SMT. LEELA P DEVADIGA, ADV. FOR R4(A-E)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER/R2 DTD.15.3.12 AT ANNEX-F IN CASE
NO.SC.ST (A) 79/2008-09, AND THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER / R3 DTD. 1.4.2008 AT
ANNEX-E IN CASE NO.KSCST NO.61/2005-06 TO ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated
01.04.2008 passed by respondent No.3 vide Annexure -E
and also order dated 15.03.2012 passed by respondent
No.2 vide Annexure-F have filed this writ petition.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition
are as under:
The land bearing survey No.50/1 measuring 6 acres
situated at Kudurugere Village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North
Taluk. The said land was granted to grandfather of
respondent No.4. The said land was sold in favour of
Sheshagiri Rao and Lakshminarasimha under registered
sale deed dated 01.12.1960. The said persons have sold
the land in favour of Kalamma W/o Kalappa under
registered sale deed dated 12.03.1970. The said Kalamma
in turn sold the land in favour of B P Shanthappa under
registered sale deed dated 26.06.1972. The petitioners are
wife and children of said B R Shanthappa. B.P. Shanthappa
died on 26.01.2012 leaving behind the petitioners as his
legal heirs. After demise of B.P. Shanthappa, the
petitioners have succeeded to the property and the name
of the petitioners were entered in the revenue records.
Respondent No.4 filed application under Section 5 of the
Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act 1978
(hereinafter referred to as 'PTCL Act' for short), alleging
that sale transaction is contrary to Section 4 of PTCL Act
and prayed to cancel the registered sale deed and to
restore the possession of the land in question in favour of
respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Respondent No.3, after due
enquiry allowed the application filed by respondent No.4.
The petitioners being aggrieved by the order passed by
respondent No.3 preferred appeal before the respondent
No.2. Respondent No.2 dismissed the appeal filed by the
petitioners. Hence, the petitioners filed this writ petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned counsel for respondent No.4 and learned High
Court Government Pleader.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that
the first sale transaction took place on 01.02.1960, second
transaction took place on 12.03.1970 and third transaction
took place on 26.06.1972. He further submitted that legal
heirs of original grantee filed a petition under section 5 of
PTCL Act in the year 2005. The said application was filed
after lapse of more than 35 years from the date of first
transaction. Hence, he further submits that there is an
inordinate delay in invoking Section 5 of PTCL Act. He
places reliance on the judgment of Nekkanti Rama
Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and Another reported
in 2018 (1) Kar.L.R. 5 (SC) and also placed relied on
order passed in W.A.No.908/2019 and connected writ
appeal disposed of on 12.06.2019. Hence, on these
grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent
No.4 supports the impugned order and submits that the
petitioners have not raised ground of limitation before
respondent No.3 and also before respondent No.2. Hence,
at this stage, the petitioners have no right to raise this
new ground for the first time in the writ petition. Hence, on
these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader
supports the impugned orders.
7. Heard and perused the records and consider
the submissions of learned counsel for parties.
8. It is not in dispute that the land in question
was granted in favour of grandfather of respondent No.4.
The said land was sold on 01.02.1960 under registered
sale deed in favour of Sheshagiri Rao and
Lakshminarasimha. The said persons in turn have sold the
land in favour of Kalamma W/o Kalappa under registered
sale deed dated 12.03.1970. The said Kalamma in turn has
sold the said land in favour of husband of petitioner No.1
and father of petitioner Nos.2 to 4 under registered sale
deed dated 26.06.1972. The said B P Shanthappa died on
26.01.2012. After his demise, the said land was
transferred in the name of the petitioners. Respondent
No.4 filed application under Section 5 of PTCL Act praying
to declare the registered sale deed as null and void and to
restore the possession before respondent No.3.
Respondent No.3, after holding due enquiry allowed the
application filed by respondent No.4. The petitioners being
aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant
Commissioner filed appeal before the respondent No.2.
Respondent No.2 dismissed the appeal. Respondent No.4
has filed application after lapse of more than 35 years from
the date of first sale transaction i.e., 01.02.1960 and
second transaction dated 12.03.1970 and third sale
transaction dated 26.06.1972 i.e., almost all more than 25
years from the date of second and third sale transactions.
Respondent No.4 has not explained the reasons for delay
in filing an application under Section 5 of PTCL Act. The
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama
Lakshmi's case in paragraph No.8 has held as hereunder:
"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 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."
9. In Nekkanti Rama Lashmi's (supra) case the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that application under Section 5 of
PTCL Act should be filed within a reasonable time. In the
present case, there is an inordinate delay in filing
application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act and hence on
this ground alone itself respondent No.3 ought to have
rejected the application, on the contrary allowed the
application. The orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3
contrary to law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Nekkanti Rama Lashmi (supra).
10. Further learned counsel for respondent No.4
submits that the petitioners have not raised ground with
regard to limitation. The said issue has been already
considered by the Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.141/2020 disposed on 20.02.2020, wherein the
Division Bench of this Court has held that "The
respondents have not raised plea regarding the limitation
in the writ petition could not have raised the same during
the course of arguments is without any substance, since a
question of limitation can be raised at any point of time
provided there is a material to deal with the question. In
this case it was strictly not a question of limitation, the
question was whether the application was filed within a
reasonable time would be decided on the basis of the
pleadings in the application for restoration." The
Respondent No.3 while considering the application under
Section 5 of PTCL Act must examine that it is filed within
reasonable time. The Respondent No.3 has not examined
the said aspect and proceeded to pass impugned orders.
Thus impugned orders are arbitrary and erroneous and
same is liable to be set aside on the ground of delay and
laches.
11. In view of the above discussion and
considering the law laid by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as
order of Division Bench of this Court, I proceed to pass the
following
::ORDER::
Writ Petition is allowed.
Order passed respondent No.3
dated 01.04.2008 vide Annexure-E and
also order passed by respondent No.2
dated 15.03.2012 vide Annexure-F are
hereby set aside .
Sd/-
JUDGE
nms
