Smt. Sabiha Begum vs The Tahasildar
2021 Latest Caselaw 5300 Kant

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.41548 OF 2012 (SC-ST)

BETWEEN:

SMT. SABIHA BEGUM
W/O MOHAMMAED IQBAL,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/O NO. 15, INFANTRY ROAD,
BANGALORE
                                      ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NATARAJ DONKENNANAVAR FOR
    SRI. ABHINAY P PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . THE TAHASILDAR
    DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
    DEVANAHALLI

2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
    DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION,
    BANGALORE - 567 550.

3 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
    BANGALORE RURAL DIST.,
    BANGALORE - 560 001.
                          2




4 . SRI. PEDDANNA @ DODDANA,
    SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

(A) SMT. RATHNAMMA
    W/O LATE PEDDANNA,
    R/O CHIKKASONNE VILLAGE,
    KASABA HOBLI,
    DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 567 550.

(B) SRI. MUNIYAPPA
    S/O LATE PEDDANNA,
    R/O CHIKKASONNE VILLAGE,
    KASABA HOBLI,
    DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 567 550.

(C) SRI. HANUMANTHU
    S/O LATE PEDDANNA,
    R/O CHIKKASONNE VILLAGE,
    KASABA HOBLI,
    DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 567 550.

(D) SMT. ANJINAMMA
    D/O LATE PEDDANNA,
    R/O RAYASANDRA, KASABA HOBLI,
    DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 567 550.
                                    ....RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. M. SANDESH KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3
    SRI. M.R. RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R-4 (A TO D)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANN-J, PASSED BY THE
R-3, DATED 7.8.12. AND RESTORE THE QUESTION IN
LAND TO THE PETITIONER.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                               3




                           ORDER

The petitioner being aggrieved by the order

dated 07.08.2012, passed by respondent No.3, vide

Annexure-J has filed this writ petition.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition

are as under:

That the land in Sy.No.8 and Re-Sy.No.23,

measuring 2 acres situated at Bandaramanahalli

Village, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore District was a

Darkasth land granted to one Sri.Chowdappa, S/o

Sri.Hanumappa Nayak vide grant order dated

05.06.1962. Sri.Chowdappa sold the said land in

favour of Sri.Doddananjappa, S/o Sri.Ramaiah under a

registered sale deed dated 19.02.1973.

Sri.Doddananjappa S/o Sri.Ramaiah in turn has sold

the said land in favour of one Sri.Mohammed Iqbal

under a registered sale deed dated 07.08.1978. After

purchase of the property by Sri.Mohammaed Iqbal

i.e., husband of the petitioner, the property was

transferred in the name of husband of the petitioner in

the year 1981-82. The partition was effected in the

family of Sri.Mohammed Iqbal, the schedule property

was fallen to the share of his wife i.e., the petitioner.

On the strength of the partition, the name of the

petitioner was entered in the revenue records as a

owner and possessor.

3. The petitioner had applied for conversion of

agricultural land into residential purpose on

21.08.2006. Respondent No.1 recommended for

conversion of agricultural land into residential

purpose. Respondent No.1 certified that there is no

litigation and also endorsed that the said survey

number does not attract any provision of Karnataka

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of

Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ('the PTCL Act'

for short) and respondent No.3 notified under

Notification dated 16.01.2007, converting land into

residential purpose. Respondent No.4 filed an

application before respondent No.2 under Section 5 of

the PTCL Act. Respondent No.2 rejected the said

application vide order dated 28.03.2008.

4. Respondent No.4 being aggrieved by the

order dated 28.03.2008 preferred an appeal before

respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 allowed the

appeal and declared the sale transactions dated

19.02.1973 and 07.08.1978 as null and void. The

petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by

respondent No.3 has filed this writ petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned HCGP for respondents No.1 to 3 and learned

counsel for respondents No.4 (a) to (d).

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the property was purchased in the year 1978 and

respondent No.4 had filed an application under

Section 5 of the PTCL Act, in the year 2006. Thus,

there is an inordinate delay in filing the application

under Section of the PTCL Act.

7. 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].

Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ

petition.

8. Per contra, learned HCGP and learned

counsel for respondents No.4 (a) to (d) strongly

opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the

petitioner and supports the impugned order passed by

respondent No.3. Hence, on these grounds they pray

to dismiss the writ petition.

9. Heard and perused the records and

considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties.

10. It is not in dispute that the said land was

granted in favor of Sri.Chowdappa, S/o

Sri.Hanumappa vide order dated 05.06.1962. The

said Sri.Chowdappa has sold the land in question in

favor of one Sri.Doddananjappa, S/o Sri.Ramaiah

under a registered sale deed dated 19.02.1973.

Sri.Doddananjappa sold the said land in favour of

Sri.Mohammaed Iqbal, i.e., husband of the petitioner

under a registered sale deed dated 07.08.1978. A

partition was effected in the family of Sri.Mohammed

Iqbal. In the said partition, the said property was

fallen to the share of Sri.Mohammed Iqbal. On the

strength of the partition, the name of the petitioner's

name was entered in the revenue records. The

petitioner had applied for conversion of land in

question for residential purpose. Respondent No.3

has passed an order for conversion of land into

residential purpose vide order dated 16.01.2007.

11. Respondent No.4 filed an application under

Section 5 of the PTCL Act, in the year 2006. The said

application was filed after lapse of 28 years from the

date of sale transaction and also from the date of

PTCL Act, coming into force. The application filed by

respondent No.4 is beyond reasonable time.

12. In view of the law laid down 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 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."

13. Thus, the application filed by respondent

No.4 is beyond reasonable time. On the ground of

limitation, respondent No.3 ought to have dismissed

the appeal, on the contrary, has allowed the appeal.

Hence, the order passed by respondent No.3 is

arbitrary and contrary to the law laid down by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA

LAKSHMI (SUPRA).

14. 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
                 07.08.2012,    vide     Annexure-J
                 passed by respondent No.3 is
                 hereby set aside and quashed.




                                       SD/-
                                       JUDGE



GH/GRD