Karnataka High Court

Smt.Chandramma vs State Of Karnataka on 13 December, 2021

Bench: Ashok S.Kinagi

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                       BEFORE

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

      WRIT PETITION NO.47086 OF 2013 (SC - ST)
BETWEEN:

SMT.CHANDRAMMA,
D/O THOLASAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT A K COLONY,
MEDIKERE VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK - 577 213,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
                                          ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.P.M.GOPI, ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI.P.M.SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE)


AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA,
       DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
       REPRESENTED BY ITS
       PRINCPAL SECRETARY, M S BUILDING
       DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
       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. GANGADHARAPPA,
     S/O SIDDAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
     R/AT MEDIKERE VILLAGE,
     CHANNAGIRI TALUK - 577 213,
     DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

5.   SRI. BHIMAPPA,
     S/O SIDDAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
     R/AT MEDIKERE VILLAGE,
     CHANNAGIRI TALUK - 577 213,
     DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
                                      ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.SANDESH KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 - 3;
    SRI.R.M.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND
    FOR PROPOSAL R6 - 8, R10-13 ON IA - 1/14;
    R4 - DEAD; R-9 - SERVED)

  THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER DATED 30.7.2003 PASSED IN CASE
NO.PTCL:CR:1/2003-04 BY THE R-3 AT ANNEXURE - F &
THE ORDER DATED 15.7.2013 PASSED IN CASE
NO.PTCL:CR:08/2008-09 BY THE R-2 AT ANNEXURE - G
AND ETC.,

     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 30.07.2003 vide Annexure - F passed by the

respondent No.3 and order dated 15.07.2013 passed

by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure - G has filed

this writ petition.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this writ

petition are as under:

The petitioner claims that he belongs to schedule

caste. The land bearing survey No.85/7 measuring 5

acres of Madikeri village, Channagiri Taluk was a

granted land. The grant made in favour of the person

belongs to down trodden society namely Thopappa,

son of Balappa, who were belongs to Adi-Karnataka by

caste and on 02.08.1955, Saguvali chit was issued on

the basis of the grant made in favor of the aforesaid

person. Property was transferred in the name of the

said person. The original grantee had sold portion of

the land to an extent of 3 acres in favour of the T.

Gangadarappa S/o. Siddappa under registered sale

deed on 20.06.1973. The petitioner filed an

application under Section 5 of the Karnataka SC and

ST (Prevention of transfer of Certain Lands)Act, 1978

before the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3

after due enquiry, rejected the application field by the

petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the

petitioner has preferred an appeal before the

respondent No.2.

3. The respondent No.2 after hearing the

parties confirmed the order passed by the respondent

No.3 and consequently dismissed the appeal. The

petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the

respondent Nos.2 and 3, has filed this writ petition.

4. Heard Sri. P. M. Gopi, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner, Sri. M. Sandesh Kumar,

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for

respondent Nos.1 to 3.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to the

Scheduled caste and the said land was granted in

favour of the original grantee. The submission is that

the sale transaction is in violation of the Section 4 of

the PTCL Act. He further submits that respondent

Nos.2 and 3 without considering the materials placed

on record, they were proceeded to pass the impugned

order. He further submits that the impugned order

passed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are arbitrary

and capricious. Hence, on these grounds, he prayed

to allow the writ petition.

6. Learned High Court Government Pleader

supports the impugned order.

7. Heard and perused the records and also

considered the submissions of the learned counsel

appearing for the parties.

acres was granted in favour of the grantee, who

belongs to scheduled caste. The original grantee had

sold the portion of the land in survey No.85/7 to an

extent of 3 acres under registered sale deed on

20.06.1973 in favour of the T. Gangadarappa S/o.

Siddappa. On the strength of the registered sale deed

executed in favour of the respondent No.4, the said

property was transferred in the name of respondent

No.4. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.07.1979.

The petitioner filed an application under Section 5 of

the PTCL Act in the year 2003 alleging that the sale

transaction is in violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act.

9. Respondent No.3 after due enquiry,

rejected the application on the ground that the land in

question was not a granted land and the provisions of

the PTCL Act are not applicable to the present case in

hand.

10. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order

passed by the respondent No.3, preferred an appeal

before the respondent No.2. Respondent No.2

confirmed the findings of the respondent No.3 and

consequently, dismissed the appeal filed by the

petitioner.

11. The original grantee executed a registered

sale deed in favour of the respondent No.4 on

20.06.1973 and the PTCL Act came into force on

01.07.1979. The petitioner filed an application after

25 years from the Act came into force. The petitioner

has not explained the reason for filing an application

at the belated stage. In view of the law laid down by

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), 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."

and in the case of Vivek M. Hinduja and others vs

M. Ashwatha and others reported in 2018(1)

Kar.L.R. 176 (SC), it is observed in para No.10 which

reads as under:

"We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid observations. It is, however, necessary to add that where limitation is not prescribed, the party ought to approach the competent Court or authority within reasonable time, beyond which no relief can be granted. As decided earlier, this principle would apply even motuactions."

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the

application must be filed within a reasonable time. In

the present case, the application is filed after lapse of

25 years from the PTCL Act, which came in to force on

01.07.1979, there is an inordinate delay in filing of the

application.

13. The respondent No.3 has rightly rejected

the application filed by the petitioner and respondent

No.2 was justified in confirming the order passed by

the respondent No.3. Therefore, I do not find any

ground to interfere with the impugned order.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.