Karnataka High Court
Babu S/O Muniswamy vs The Deputy Commissioner 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.12992 OF 2010 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
BABU
S/O MUNISWAMY
R/O CHINNARAJU CAMP
LAKKAVALLI, TARIKERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R SHASHIDHARA, ADV.)
AND
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT
CHIKKAMAGALUR
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
TARIKERE SUB-DIVISION
TARIKERE
3. SMT. T.R.SAROJAMMA
W/O SRINIVASA
AGE MAJOR, R/O CHINNARAJU CAMP
LAKKAVALLI, TARIKERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT
...RESPONDENTS
2
(BY SRI. M. SANDESH KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 & R2
SRI. SHANKAR S. BHAT, ADV. FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT
CHIKKAMAGALUR IN PTL: 14/08-09 DATED 07.12.2009
VIDE ANNEXURE-C, CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TARIKERE SUB
DIVISION, TARIKERE IN SC/ST:11:2006-07 DATED
08.08.2008 VIDE ANNEXURE-B; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner being aggrieved by the order
dated 08.08.2008, vide Annexure-B passed by
respondent No.2 and order dated 07.12.2009, vide
Annexure-C passed by respondent No.1, has filed this
writ petition.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition
are as under:
That land in Sy.No.45 measuring about 4 acres
11 guntas situated at Sompura Village, Tarikere Taluk
was granted to one Muniya, S/o Muniya under
Darkasth for reduced upset price on 23.07.1936. The
original grantee is the grandfather of the petitioner
who sold the said land in favour of respondent No.3
under registered sale deed dated 24.02.1970. The
petitioner 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) alleging that the sale
transaction is in violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act.
Respondent No.2, after enquiry, rejected the
application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner
being aggrieved by the order passed by respondent
No.2, preferred an appeal before respondent No.1.
Respondent No.1 after hearing the parties, confirmed
the order passed by respondent No.2 and
consequently dismissed the appeal. Hence this writ
petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned
counsel for the respondent No.3 and learned HCGP.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have committed an error
in passing the impugned orders. He further submits
that the land in question is a granted land and the
provisions of the PTCL Act are applicable. Respondent
Nos.1 and 2, without applying their mind, have
proceeded to pass the impugned orders. Hence on
these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent
No.3 and learned HCGP supports the impugned
orders.
6. Perused the records and considered the
submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
7. The land was owned by Muniya and his name
was appearing in the revenue records. The said
Muniya had sold the land in favour of respondent No.3
under registered sale deed dated 24.02.1970. The
PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. Petitioner
has filed the application under Section 5 of the PTCL
Act in the year 2008 alleging that the sale transaction
is in violation of Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act. The
said application is filed after 29 years from the date of
the PTCL Act coming into force. Thus, there is an
inordinate delay in filing the application under Section
5 of the PTCL Act. The petitioner has not explained
the reason for filing the application at a belated stage.
8. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NEKKANTI
RAMA LAKSHMI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.
[2020(14) SCC 232] 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."
9. Thus there is an inordinate delay of 29 years
in filing the application under Section 5 of the PTCL
Act. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI
(SUPRA), the application filed by the petitioner is
beyond reasonable time. Respondent Nos.1 and 2
were justified in passing the impugned orders. I do
not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned
orders. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE
RD
