Karnataka High Court

Smt Pillamma vs The Deputy Commissioner on 14 December, 2021

Bench: Ashok S.Kinagi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                      BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

   WRIT PETITION NO.3972 OF 2020 (SC-ST)

BETWEEN:

SMT. PILLAMMA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
W/O SRI MUNIYAPPA,
R/AT GADDAKANNURU VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.
                                     ...PETITIONER

(BY MS. SWETHA G DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI. PAPI REDDY G, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
    KOLAR DISTRICT,
    KOLAR -563 1O1.

2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
    KOLAR SUB DIVISION,
    KOLAR -563 1O1.

3 . THE TAHSILDAR
    KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT,
    KOLAR -563 1O1.
                              2




4 . SRI. CHICKAMUNIYAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
    S/O SI DODDAHANUMANTHAPPA
    R/AT H.MALLANDAHALLI VILLAGE,
    HUTHUR HOBLI,
    KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR -563 1O1.

5 . SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
    S/O SRI.MUNIYAPPA,
    R/AT H.MALLANDAHALLI VILLAGE,
    HUTHUR HOBLI,
    KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR -563 1O1.
                                              ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. V. SESHU, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3
    SRI. CHANNABASAPPA S.N, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-5
    R-4 SERVED UNREPRESENTED)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF    THE    CONSTITUTION        OF   INDIA      PRAYING    TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.09.2019 PASSED BY                 THE
R-1 IN CASE VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND THE ORDER DATED
24.11.2016    PASSED    BY   THE      R-2   IN      CASE   VIDE
ANNEXURE-G AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE R-3 TO
CANCEL THE REVENUE ENTRIES MADE IN THE NAMES OF
R-4 AND 5 AND RESTORE THE ENTRIES IN THE NAME OF
THE   PETITIONER   IN   RESPECT        OF     THE    SCHEDULE
PROPERTY.
      THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
                                   3




                            ORDER

The petitioner being aggrieved by the order

dated 18.09.2019 passed by respondent No.1, vide

Annexure-H and also order dated 24.11.2016 passed

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

writ petition.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition

are as under:

That land in old Sy.No.85, new Sy.No.99

measuring 2 acres was granted in favour of one

Smt.Lakshmakka on 20.10.1948. Smt.Lakshmakka

has sold the property in favour of Sri.Beerappa in the

year 1961. Another 2 acres of land in old Sy.No.85

was granted in favour of one Sri.Doddahanumanthu

S/o Dasappa on 20.10.1948 as per the entry made in

the Record of Rights. The said two entries relating to

the grants in favour of Smt.Lakshmakka and

Sri.Doddahanumanthu S/o Dasappa have been

entered in the Record of Rights. One Sri.Beerappa

had purchased the land measuring 2 acres in old

Sy.No.85 including the schedule property under a

registered sale deed dated 19.06.1961 from

Smt.Lakshmakka. The partition was effected in the

family of Sri.Beerappa. In the said partition, the said

property was allotted to the share of one

Sri.Venkatesh Gowda under a registered partition

deed dated 27.11.1975. On the strength of registered

partition deed, the name of Sri.Venkatesh Gowda was

entered in the Record of Rights. The petitioner has

purchased the land measuring 1 acre 5 guntas in old

Sy.No.85, new Sy.No.99 under a registered sale deed

dated 29.12.1994. On the strength of registered sale

deed dated 29.12.1994, the revenue entries have

been mutated in the name of the petitioner.

The petitioner is cultivating the schedule property

from the date of purchase. The respondents No.4

and 5 had misconstrued the grant made in favour of

Smt.Lakshmakka and Sri.Doddahanumanthu S/o

Dasappa and had initiated PTCL proceedings before

respondent No.2 and filed an application under

Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and

Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain

Lands) Act, 1978 ('the PTCL Act' for short) alleging

that the said transactions are in violation of Section 4

of the PTCL Act. Respondent No.2 allowed the

application vide order dated 24.11.2016. The

petitioner being aggrieved by the order of respondent

No.2 has filed an appeal before respondent No.1.

Respondent No.1 vide order dated 18.09.2019 has

confirmed the order passed by respondent No.2 and

consequently dismissed the appeal filed by the

petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ

petition.

3. Though notice was issued to the

respondent No.4, respondent No.4 remained absent.

4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner,

learned HCGP for respondents No.1 to 3 and learned

counsel for caveat/respondent No.5.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the original grantee had sold the land in favour of

Sri.Beerappa in the year 1961. Respondents No.4

and 5 have filed an application under Section 5 of the

PTCL Act, in the year 2010-11. She further submits

that there is an inordinate delay in filing the

application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. In

support of her contention she places reliance on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA &

ANR. [2020(14) SCC 232] which is further reiterated

in the case of MR.VIVEK H HINDJUJA AND OTHERS v.

MR. ASWATHA AND OTHERS reported in (2020) 14

SCC 228. She further submits that respondents No.1

and 2 have committed an error in passing the

impugned orders. The impugned orders are contrary

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

aforesaid judgments. Hence, on these grounds, she

prays to allow the writ petition.

6. Per contra, learned HCGP and learned

counsel for respondent No.5 supports the impugned

order.

7. Perused the records and considered the

submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

8. It is not in dispute that the land was

granted in favour of Smt.Lakshmakka and

Sri.Doddahanumanthu S/o Dasappa in the year 1948.

Smt.Lakshmakka had sold the land in favour of

Sri.Beerappa under the registered sale deed dated

19.06.1961. A partition was effected among the

family members of Sri.Beerappa. In the said

partition, the said property had fallen to the share of

Sri.Venkatesh Gowda under a registered partition

deed dated 27.11.1975. The said Sri.Venkatesh

Gowda had sold the land in favour of the petitioner

under a registered sale deed dated 29.12.1994. After

lapse of more than 30 years respondents No.4 and 5

filed the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act,

before respondent No.2. The PTCL Act came into

force on 01.01.1979. Respondents No.4 and 5 have

filed the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act,

in the year 2010-11 alleging that the sale transaction

is in violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act.

Respondent No.2, after due enquiry, allowed the

application filed by respondents No.4 and 5 and

declared the registered sale deed dated 19.06.1961

and also registered sale deed dated 29.12.1994 as

null and void and directed to restore the possession in

favour of respondents No.4 and 5. Petitioner being

aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.2

preferred an appeal before respondent No.1.

Respondent No.1 has confirmed the order passed by

respondent No.2.

9. From perusal of the records, it is clear that

Smt.Lakshmakka has sold the said land in favour of

Sri.Beerappa under a registered sale deed dated

19.06.1961. Respondents No.4 and 5 have filed the

application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act in the year

2010, after more than 30 years the PTCL Act came

into force. Thus, there is an inordinate delay in filing

the application. Respondents No.4 and 5 have not

explained the sufficient cause in filing an application at

a belated stage.

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases

referred above, has held as under:

(a) In the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI (SUPRA):

"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."

(b) In the case of VIVEK M. HINDUJA (SUPRA):

"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:

"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'."

11. Thus, respondents No.4 and 5 have not filed

application within the reasonable time. Respondents

No.1 and 2 without considering that the application is

filed beyond reasonable time, have allowed the

application filed by respondents No.4 and 5. The

impugned orders passed by respondents No.1 and 2

are contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in

the judgments referred supra. Thus, this Court is of

the opinion that the application filed by respondents

No.4 and 5 is beyond reasonable time.

12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the

following order is passed :