Karnataka High Court

Sri Narayanappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 December, 2021

Bench: Ashok S.Kinagi

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.11442 OF 2012 (SC-ST)

BETWEEN:

1.   SRI NARAYANAPPA
     DEAD BY HIS LRS.

    SMT. JAYAMMA
1a) W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
    AGED 53 YEARS
    R/AT ALKERE VILLAGE
    HUTHRIDURAG HOBLI
    KUNIGAL TALUK
    TUMKUR DISTRICT
    TUMKUR - 572 101.

1b) SRI. NANDISH
    S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
    AGED 37 YEARS
    R/AT ALKERE VILLAGE
    HUTHRIDURAG HOBLI
    KUNIGAL TALUK
    TUMKUR DISTRICT
    TUMKUR - 572 101.

1c) SRI. MANJUNATH
    S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
    AGED 35 YEARS
    R/AT ALKERE VILLAGE
                           2




   HUTHRIDURAG HOBLI
   KUNIGAL TALUK
   TUMKUR DISTRICT
   TUMKUR - 572 101.


                                     ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. P.M. SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
    REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
    DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
    VIDHANA SOUDHA
    BENGALURU - 560 001.

2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
    TUMKUR DISTRICT
    TUMKUR - 572 101.

3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
    TUMKUR SUB-DIVISION
    TUMKUR - 572 101.

4 . SRI. SANNAHANUMAMMA
    W/O LATE VENKATAIAH
    AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
    R/AT ALKERE VILLAGE
    HUTHRIDURAG HOBLI
    KUNIGAL TALUK
    TUMKUR DISTRICT
    TUMKUR - 572 130.

5 . SRI. MALLIKARJUNA
    S/O LATE VENKATAIAH
    AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
    R/AT ALKERE VILLAGE
                           3




   HUTHRIDURAG HOBLI
   KUNIGAL TALUK
   TUMKUR DISTRICT
   TUMKUR - 572 130.

6 . SRI. SHIVANNA
    S/O LATE VENKATAIAH
    AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
    R/AT ALKERE VILLAGE
    HUTHRIDURAG HOBLI
    KUNIGAL TALUK
    TUMKUR DISTRICT
    TUMKUR - 572 130.

7 . SRI. MOODALAIAH
    S/O LATE CHIKKADODDAIAH
    AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
    R/AT ALKERE VILLAGE
    HUTHRIDURAG HOBLI
    KUNIGAL TALUK
    TUMKUR DISTRICT
    TUMKUR - 572 130.

                                   ....RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SANDESH KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3
 SRI.PATEL D KAREGOWDA,ADVOCATE FOR R-4, R-6 & R-7
  SRI. F.S. DABALI, ADVOCATE FOR R-5)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.07.2006
PASSED IN CASE NO.PTCL 16/2004/05 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT No.3 - ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
TUMKUR SUB DIVISION, TUMKUR VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND
ETC.
                               4




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

                          ORDER

The petitioner being aggrieved by the order

dated 25.07.2006, passed by respondent No.3, vide

Annexure-D and the order dated 12.12.2011, passed

by respondent No.2, vide Annexure-E has filed this

writ petition.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition

are as under:

That the land bearing Sy.No.46 totally

gunta and Sy.No.46 measuring 10 guntas situated at

Alkere Village, Huthridurga Hobli, Tumkur Taluk. The

said lands were granted in favour of Sri.Karerangaiah,

Sri.A.K.Chikkadoddaiah and Sri.Thimmananjaiah

during the year 1944. The original grantees claim to

be the cousins by relation to the original petitioner.

A portion of land granted in favour of Sri.Karerangaiah

was assigned with New Sy.No.127 and portion of land

granted in favour of Sri.A.K.Chikkadoddaiah was

assigned with New Sy.No.128 and portion of land

granted in favour of Sri.Thimmanangaiah was

assigned with New Sy.No.129.

2.1. The said Sri.A.K.Chikkadoddaiah sold the

said property under two registered sale deeds dated

06.03.1954 and 12.05.1964 in favor of one

Sri.Rangaiah S/o Sri.Rangegowda, who is father of the

petitioner. The father of the petitioner died leaving

behind the petitioner. After his demise, the property

was transferred in the name of the petitioner.

2.2. Respondents No.4 to 7 have jointly 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) before respondent No.3 for cancellation and

for declaring the registered sale deeds as null and void

and for resumption of lands. Respondent No.3 vide

order dated 25.07.2006 allowed the application filed

by respondents No.4 to 7 and declared the sale deed

as null and void and ordered to restore the said lands

to the legal heirs of the original grantees. The

petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated

25.07.2006 passed by respondent No.3 preferred an

appeal before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2,

dismissed the appeal vide order dated 12.12.2011.

Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition

challenging the orders passed by respondent Nos.2

and 3.

3. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and

learned HCGP for respondents No.1 to 3 and learned

counsel for respondents No.4 to 7.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that the lands were granted in the year 1944 in favour

of the aforesaid three persons.

Sri.A.K.Chikkadoddaiah sold the said land in favour of

father of the petitioner under two registered sale

deeds dated 06.03.1954 and 12.05.1964. He further

submits that respondents No.4 to 7 have jointly filed

an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, in the

year 2006. He further submitted that the said

application was filed after lapse of 26 years from the

date the PTCL Act came into force. Hence, there was

an inordinate delay in filing the said application before

respondent No.3.

5. In order to buttress his arguments, he has

relied upon 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.

6. Per contra, learned HCGP and learned

counsel for respondents No.4 to 7 supports the

impugned order.

7. Heard and perused the records and

considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties.

8. The land in Sy.No.46 measuring 20 guntas,

10 guntas and 10 guntas was allotted to

Sri.Karerangaiah, Sri.A.K.Chikkadodaiah and

Sri.Thimmananjaiah in the year 1944.

Sri.A.K.Chikkadoddaiah alienated the said land in

favour of father of the petitioner under two registered

sale deeds dated 06.03.1954 and 12.05.1964. On the

strength of the registered sale deeds the name of

father of the petitioner was entered in the revenue

records. The father of petitioner died leaving behind

the petitioner as his legal representative. After his

demise, name of the petitioner was entered in the

revenue records in the year 2006. That on

21.07.2004, respondents No.4 to 7 have jointly filed

an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, before

respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 without examining

that the application was filed beyond the reasonable

time has allowed the application.

9. From perusal of the records, the PTCL Act

came into force on 01.01.1979. Respondents No.4 to

7 have filed the application under Section 5 of the

PTCL Act, on 21.07.2004 after more than 25 years

from the date of coming into force of the PTCL Act.

Thus, there is an inordinate delay in filing the

application. 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 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."

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the

application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, must be

invoked within the reasonable time. The application

has been filed by respondent Nos.4 to 7 after an

unreasonably long period. Hence, the application

made by respondents No.4 to 7 is liable to be rejected

on the ground of inordinate delay.

11. Thus, in view of the above discussion, I

proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i. The writ petition is allowed.

           ii.   The   impugned         order   dated
                 25.07.2006,     vide    Annexure-D
                 passed by respondent No.3, and
                 order dated 12.12.2011, vide
                 Annexure-E           passed      by





                 respondents No.2 are hereby set
                 aside and quashed.