Karnataka High Court

Huchaveeraiah vs State Of Karnataka on 3 December, 2021

Bench: Ashok S.Kinagi

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                        BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK.S.KINAGI

       WRIT PETITION NO.11637 OF 2018 (SC-ST)

BETWEEN:

1.     HUCHAVEERAIAH
       S/O SHIVALINGAIAH
       AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS

2.     CHANDRASEKHARAIAH
       S/O SHIVALINGAIAH
       AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

3.     VEERABHADRAIAH
       S/O SHIVALINGAIAH
       AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

4.     CHANNABASAVAIAH
       S/O SHIVALINGAIAH
       AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

      ALL RESIDING AT GANDHAL, HULIYAR HOBLI,
      CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, 572214
      TUMKUR DISTRICT.
                                        ...PETITIONERS
(By Sri. M.S. RAJENDRA PRASAD, ADVOCATE
    Sri. N. MANJUNATH, ADV)

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
       VIKAS SOUDHA
       DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
       BANGALORE-560001
                            -2-




     REPRESENTED BY ITS
     PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

2.   DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
     TUMKUR DISTRICT
     TUMKUR-572101

3.   THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
     TIPTUR SUB DIVISION
     TIPTUR-572201

4.   NAGANAIKA
     S/O VEERANAIKA
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
     BHADRAIAHNA PALYA
     GANDHAL MAJRE-572214
     HULIYAR HOBLI
     CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
     TUMKUR DISTRICT
                                   ...       RESPONDENTS

(By Sri: M. SANDESH KUMAR, HCGP, FOR R1 TO R3,
    Sri: RAMESH ANANTHAN, ADV., FOR R4)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DTD: 8.12.2017 IN PTCL NO.18/2011-12 ON THE FILE
OF R-2 WHEREIN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE R-4 AGAINST THE
ORDER DTD: 29.7.1999 IN PTCL ST [CHI]4/1998-99 HAD BEEN
ALLOWED AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR 'PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
                              -3-




                         ORDER

The petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated

08.12.2017 passed by respondent No.2 have filed this writ

petition.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition

are that:

The land in Sy.No.36/3 measuring 05 acres situated

at Ganadhal Village, Huliyar Hobli, Chikkanayakanahalli

Taluk, Tumkur District was granted to one Sri Veeranaiaka,

as per the grant order dated 24.11.1948. The said grantee

sold the said land virtually in exchange in favour of the

father of the petitioners under a registered sale deed dated

20.08.1956. After execution of the registered sale deed, on

the strength of registered sale deed, the revenue entries

were changed in the name of the petitioners. The father of

the petitioners died leaving behind the petitioners. After

his demise, the property was transferred to the name of

the petitioners. The petitioners father had sold the land

bearing Sy.No.37/5 measuring 04 acres 02 guntas to the

father of respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 filed an

application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer

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

year 1982-83 before respondent No.3. Respondent No.3

vide order dated 29.05.1984 allowed the application and

declared the sale deed as null and void. The petitioners

being aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.3,

filed an appeal before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2

dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by

respondent No.3. The petitioners being aggrieved by the

order passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 preferred

W.P.No.16804/1987. This Court allowed the petition and

remitted the matter to respondent No.3 for disposal afresh

in accordance with law. Respondent No.3 registered the

application as PTCL SR(Chi) 4/1998-99. After due enquiry,

respondent No.3 has passed an order rejecting the

application of respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 being

aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.3 vide

Annexure-J, preferred an appeal before respondent No.2.

Respondent No.2 after hearing the parties, allowed the

appeal vide order dated 08.12.2017 and declared the

registered sale deed executed in favor of the father of the

petitioners as null and void. The petitioners being

aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.2, has

filed this writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

and also the learned counsel for respondent No.4 and the

learned HCGP.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that the grant was made in favor of father of respondent

No.4 on 24.01.1948. The petitioners' father had purchased

the land in question from the father of respondent No.4

under a registered sale deed dated 20.08.1956 and further

submits that the father of the petitioners had sold the land

in Sy.No.36/3 under a registered sale deed dated

20.08.1956. He further submits that virtually it is an

exchange. He further submits that the grantee had filed an

application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act before

respondent No.3, after lapse of 35 years from the date of

the sale transaction. He further submits that there is an

inordinate delay in filing the application under Section 5 of

the PTCL Act. He further places reliance on the judgments

of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama

Lakshmi vs State of Karnataka and another reported

in 2018(1) Kar.L.R 5 (SC) and in the case of Vivek M.

Hinduja and others vs M. Ashwatha and others

reported in 2018(1) Kar.L.R. 176 (SC). Hence, he

submits that respondent No.2 ought to have dismissed the

appeal only on the ground of delay and laches in filing an

application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. He further

submits that respondent No.2 has committed an error in

passing the impugned order. Hence, on these grounds, he

prays to allow the writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 supports

the impugned order and he further submits that

respondent No.4 has explained the delay in filing an

application. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss

the petition.

6. Learned HCGP also adopted the arguments of

learned counsel for respondent No.4.

7. Heard and perused the records and considered

the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

8. The land in question was granted to one

Sri Veeranaika as per the grant order dated 24.11.1948.

The said grantee had sold the land in exchange in favour

of the father of the petitioners under a registered sale

deed dated 26.08.1956 and the father of the petitioners

had executed a registered sale deed in respect of

Sy.No.37/5 in favor of the father of respondent No.4. On

the strength of the registered sale deed, the said property

was transferred to the name of the father of the petitioners

and the name of the father of the petitioners was entered

in the revenue records. After the demise of their father,

the petitioners have succeeded to the estate of their

father. After his demise, the property in question was

transferred in the name of the petitioners. The petitioners

have produced the RTC extracts to show that they are

owners and in possession of the land in question.

Respondent No.4 filed an application under Section 5 of

the PTCL Act in the year 1982-83 i.e., 26 years from the

date of execution of the registered sale deed. Respondent

No.4 has not explained the delay in filing the application

under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. Thus, there is an

inordinate delay in fling an application under Section 5 of

the PTCL Act. 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

- 10 -

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."

In view of the above, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the provisions

of statute must be involved within a reasonable time. In the present

case, the application has been filed after lapse of more than 26 years

from the date of execution of the registered sale deed. Thus, there is

an inordinate delay in filing the application. The Respondent No.4 has

not explained sufficient cause for filing an application at a belated. In

the absence of explanation of delay the application is liable to be

rejected. Hence on the ground of delay and laches, respondent No.2

ought to have dismissed the appeal, on the contrary has allowed the

appeal. Hence, the impugned order passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3

- 11 -

are contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in