Sri. M.S. Parameswarappa vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 5838 Kant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                      BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

  WRIT PETITION NO.60181 OF 2014 (SC-ST)

BETWEEN:

SRI. M.S. PARAMESWARAPPA
S/O SHIVALINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MADENAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213.
                                        ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P M SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

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

2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
    DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
    DAVANAGERE - 577 001.

3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
    DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISION,
    DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
                          2




4 . SRI. LACHANAIKA
    S/O HANUMANTHANAYAK,
    AGED AOBUT 40 YEARS,

5 . SRI. ESHWARANAIKA,
    S/O HANUMANTHANAYAK,
    AGED AOBUT 38 YEARS,

6 . SRI. GOVINDANAIKA
    S/O HANUMANTHANAYAK,
    AGED AOBUT 55 YEARS,

   RESPONDENTS No.4 TO 6 ARE
   R/AT MADENAHALLI VILLAGE,
   KASABA HOBLI,
   CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
   DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213.
                                    ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. M. SANDESH KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3
    SMT. RADHA Y., ADVOCATE FOR R-4 AND R-5
    R-6 SERVED UNREPRESENTED)

                         ------


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2014 PASSED BY THE
R-2/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-F.


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




                           ORDER

The petitioner being aggrieved by the order

dated 28.11.2014 passed by respondent No.2-Deputy

Commissioner has filed the present writ petition.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition

are as under:

That the land bearing Survey No.86/1 measuring

4 acres situated at Donabhagatte Village, Kasaba

Hobli, Channagiri Taluk claims to be granted in favour

of one Hanumanthanaika son of Sevya Naika in the

year 1963-64 for an upset price. The said

Hanumanthanaika claims to be a person belonging to

the 'scheduled tribe' community. The petitioner had

purchased the said land under registered sale deed

dated 17.12.1966. There was partition in the family

of the petitioner and in the said partition, the said

property had fallen to the share of the petitioner. The

LRs of the original grantee invoked Section 5 of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of

Transfer of Certain lands) Act 1978 (for short 'the

PTCL Act') in the year 1989. Respondent No.3 after

due enquiry rejected the application filed by the legal

representatives of the original grantee. The legal

representatives of the original grantee being

aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.3,

filed an appeal before respondent No.2. Respondent

No.2 vide the impugned order allowed the application

filed by the legal representatives of the original

grantee. Hence, the petitioner being aggrieved by the

order passed by respondent No.2 has filed this

petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned

HCGP for respondents No.1 to 3 and learned counsel

for respondents No.4 and 5-legal representatives of

the original grantee.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the land was granted in the year 1963-64 in

favour of one Hanumantha Naik for an upset price.

He further submits that the said land was sold in

favour of the petitioner vide registered sale deed

dated 17.12.1966. He submits that the PTCL Act

came into force on 1.1.1979 and the legal

representatives of the original grantee filed an

application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act in the year

1988. He further submits that the legal

representatives of the original grantee has invoked

the provisions of the PTCL Act after a lapse of more

than 25 years from the date of the aforesaid Act

coming into force and therefore, inordinate delay has

occurred in invoking the provisions of the PTCL Act.

In order to buttress his argument, he has relied on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in NEKKANTI

RAMA LAKSHMI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND

ANOTHER reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232 which is

further reiterated in the case of MR.VIVEK H

HINDUJA AND OTHERS v. MR. ASWATHA AND

OTHERS reported in (2020) 14 SCC 228. He further

submits that respondent No.2 without considering the

said aspect has proceeded to pass the impugned

order. The impugned order is contrary to the law laid

down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Hence, on these

grounds he prays to allow the writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the

respondents No.4 and 5 submits that the registered

sale deed dated 17.12.1966 is in violation of Section 4

of the PTCL Act. He further submits that respondent

No.2 after holding due enquiry has recorded a finding

that the sale deed is in violation of Section 4 of the

PTCL Act. He further submits that respondents No.2

and 3 were justified in passing the impugned order.

Hence, on these grounds he prays to dismiss the writ

petition. Learned HCGP supports the impugned order.

6. Perused the records and considered the

submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7. The land in question was granted in the year

1963-64 in favour of one Hanumanthanaik who

belongs to the scheduled tribe community with a non

alienation clause. The original grantee had sold the

land in favour of the petitioner under registered sale

deed dated 17.12.1966 and on the strength of the

same, name of the petitioner was entered in the

revenue records. The legal representatives of the

original grantee invoked the provisions of Section 5 of

the PTCL Act in the year 1989 i.e. 33 years from the

date of execution of the registered sale deed and 11

years from the date of the aforesaid Act came into

force. There is an inordinate delay in invoking the

provision of Section 5 of the PTCL Act i.e. 33 years

from the date of execution of the registered sale deed

and 11 years from the date of the aforesaid Act

coming into force. Thus in view of the law laid down

by the Hon'ble Apex Court in NEKKANTI RAMA

LAKSHMI supra, the application filed by the legal

representatives of the original grantee is beyond the

reasonable time and the said fact was not considered

by respondent No.2. Hence, this Court is of the view

that the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is

contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI supra and the

writ petition succeeds.

8. In view of the above discussion, the following

order is passed :

ORDER

i) The writ petition is allowed;

ii) The order dated 28.11.2014 passed by respondent No.2 is hereby set aside.

SD/-

JUDGE

rs