Karnataka High Court

Sri Basavarajappa vs State Of Karnataka on 3 December, 2021

Bench: Ashok S.Kinagi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

     WRIT PETITION NO.2925 OF 2020 (SC-ST)

BETWEEN:

SRI. BASAVARAJAPPA
S/O RAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/AT GOPAGONDANA HALLI VILLAGE,
HONNALI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 514.
                                        ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M H SAWKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
       REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
       M.S.BUILDING,
       BANGALORE - 560 001.

2.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
       DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
       DAVANAGERE - 577 514.

3.     THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
       DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISION,
       DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 514.
                          2




4.   THE TAHSILDAR
     HONNALI TALUK,
     DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 514.

5.   A K NAGARAJAPPA
     S/O LATE BASAPPA,
     MAJOR, R/AT OF TAGGIHALLI VILLAGE,
     HONNALI TALUK,
     DAVANAGERE - 577 514.

                                     ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. M. SANDEHS KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-4
    R-5 SERVED UNREPRESENTED)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.11.2016 PASSED BY THE
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/R-3 AS PER ANNX-B. AND
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.01.2020 PASSED BY THE
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/R-2 AS PER ANNX-A.

     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 16.11.2016, passed by respondent No.3 vide

Annexure-B and also order dated 10.01.2020, passed

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

writ petition.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition

are as under:

That land in Sy.No.187 (old Sy.No.104) situated

at T.Gopagondanahalli Village, Govina Kovi Hobli-1,

Honnali Taluk, Davanagere District was granted in

favour of father of respondent No.5 namely Basappa,

S/o Murudappa under order dated 01.09.1972. He

was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule

property. Respondent No.4 issued grant certificate

dated 19.12.1974. By virtue of grant certificate, the

name of the father of respondent No.5 was entered in

revenue records. Subsequently, petitioner's mother

namely Smt. Durgamma, W/o Ramappa purchased

the said property vide registered sale deed dated

30.05.1990, from the father of respondent No.5. On

the strength of the registered sale deed, khatha was

transferred in the name of petitioner's mother.

Subsequently, the said property was phoded by the

authorities and Sy.No.104 was re-numbered as

Sy.No.187. After the demise of original purchaser

namely Durgamma, the said property was transferred

in the name of the petitioner-Basavarajappa, her legal

heir. Petitioner's name was entered in the revenue

records.

Respondent No.5 filed an application under

Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain

Lands) Act, 1978 ('the PTCL Act' for short) in the year

2013-14. Respondent No.3, after holding an enquiry,

allowed the application and declared the sale deed as

null and void. Petitioner being aggrieved by the order,

filed an appeal before respondent No.2. Respondent

No.2, vide order dated 10.01.2020, confirmed the

order passed by respondent No.3 and consequently

dismissed the appeal. Petitioner being aggrieved by

the orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3, has

filed this petition.

3. Though notice was served on respondent

No.5, he remained absent.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the land was granted in favour of father of

respondent No.5 namely Basappa, in the year 1972

and grant certificate was issued in the year 1974.

Respondent No.5 had sold the said land in favour of

petitioner's mother under registered sale deed dated

30.05.1990. Respondent No.5 has filed an application

under Section 5 of the PTCL Act in the year 2013-14.

He further submits that there is a delay of 19 years in

filing the application, and without considering the said

aspect, respondent No.2 has passed the impugned

order which is contrary to the law laid down by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of VIVEK M. HINDUJA &

ORS. VS. M. ASHWATHA & ORS. [(2020) 14 SCC 228]

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 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 land in question

was granted in favour of father of respondent No.5

vide order dated 01.09.1972 and grant certificate was

issued by respondent No4 on 19.12.1974. The father

of respondent No.5 has executed a registered sale

deed in favour of petitioner's mother on 30.05.1990.

After the expiry of 19 years, respondent No.5 has filed

an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act alleging

that the sale deed executed by the father of

respondent No.5 in favour of petitioner's mother is in

violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act and hence

prayed to declare the registered sale deed as null and

void and to resume the land in his favour.

Respondent No.3, after holding an enquiry, passed an

order allowing the application filed by respondent

No.5, vide order dated 16.11.2016. Aggrieved by the

said order, petitioner filed an appeal before

respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 vide order dated

10.01.2020, confirmed the order passed by

respondent No.3.

9. Admittedly, the sale deed was executed on

30.05.1990 and the application was filed in the year

2013-14 i.e., after lapse of more than 12 years from

the date of execution of registered sale deed.

Respondent No.5 has not explained the delay in filing

the application at a belated stage. The Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI (supra)

has held 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."

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of VIVEK M.

HINDUJA (supra), has held as under:

"10. In PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION V. STATE OF

MAHARASHTRA [(2007) 5 SCC 211] this court reproduced the following observations with regard to the declaration of orders beyond the period of limitation as invalid: (SCC p.226, para 39) '39. Setting aside the decree passed by all the courts and referring to several cases, this court held that if the party aggrieved by invalidity of the order intends to approach the court for declaration that the order against him was inoperative, he must come before the court within the period prescribed by limitation. 'If the statutory time of limitation expires, the court cannot give the declaration sought for'."

10. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the above referred cases, the

application filed by respondent No.5 is beyond

reasonable time. On this ground alone, respondent

No.3 ought to have dismissed the application, on the

contrary has allowed the application. The orders

passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 are contrary to the

law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Thus, the

application made by respondent No.5 was beyond

reasonable time. Hence, on this ground alone, the

writ petition is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, I

proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The writ petition is allowed.

The impugned order dated 16.11.2016, passed by respondent No.3 and the order dated 10.01.2020, passed by respondent No.2, are hereby quashed and set aside.