Karnataka High Court
Sri. Munivenkatappa vs State Of Karnataka on 16 December, 2021
Bench: Ashok S.Kinagi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.47876 OF 2019 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MUNIVENKATAPPA
S/O VENKATAGIRIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
2. SRI. V VENKATESHAPPA
S/O VENKATAGIRIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT GONURU KOPPA VILLAGE,
LAKKURU HOBLI, MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 160.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GANGADHARAIAH A N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S.BUILDING,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR - 563 101.
2
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KOLAR SUB-DIVISION,
KOLAR - 563 101.
4. SRI. NARASIMHAREDDY
S/O VENKATARAMANAREDDY LECTURER,
RESIDING AT MARUTHI LAYOUT,
MALUR,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINAY T.R., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. C V SUDHINDRA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-4
SRI. SHESHU, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2 ND RESPONDENT IN
NO.PTCL/18/2018 DATED 04.09.2019 AT ANNEXURE-A AS
ILLEGAL AND SET ASIDE THE SAME AND CONSEQUENTLY,
CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3 RD RESPONDENT
DATED 28.06.2018 AT ANNEXURE-B.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEAING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners have filed the present writ
petition seeking to set aside the order dated
04.09.2019, vide Annexure-A passed by respondent
No.2, and to confirm the order dated 28.06.2018, vide
Annexure-B passed by respondent No.3.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition
are as under:
That land in Sy.No.59 measuring 2 acres
situated at Gonur Koppa, Lakkur Hobli, Malur Taluk
was granted in favour of Sri.Venkatagiriyappa, who is
father of the petitioners. The father of the petitioners
bequeathed the land in favour of his sister
Smt.Venkatamma under a registered gift deed dated
07.09.1968. The said Smt.Venkatamma had sold the
said land in favour of the petitioners under a
registered sale deed dated 05.09.1974. The
petitioners in turn have sold the land in favour of
respondent No.4, Sri.Narasimhareddy under a
registered sale deed dated 30.04.1984. The
petitioners 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) before respondent No.3.
Respondent No.3 after holding an enquiry allowed the
application filed by the petitioners and directed to
restore the lands in favour of the petitioners vide
order dated 28.06.2018. Respondent No.4 being
aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.3
preferred an appeal before respondent No.2.
Respondent No.2 after hearing the parties allowed the
appeal and set aside the order passed by respondent
No.3. Hence, the petitioners have filed this writ
petition challenging the order passed by respondent
No.2.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned HCGP for respondents No.1 to 3 and learned
counsel for respondent No.4.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that respondent No.2 has committed an error in
entertaining the appeal filed by respondent No.4. He
further submits that respondent No.2 has failed to
consider that the sale transaction is in violation of
Section 4 of the PTCL Act. He further submits that
respondent No.2 has failed to issue notice to the
petitioners and proceeded to pass the impugned
order. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the
writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent
No.4 submits that the land was granted in favour of
Sri.Venkatagiriyappa, in the year 1950 and the said
Sri.Venkatagiriyappa bequeathed the property in
favour of Smt.Venkatamma under a registered gift
deed dated 07.09.1968. The said Smt.Venkatamma
has sold the said land in favour of the petitioners
under a registered sale deed dated 05.09.1974. The
petitioners in turn have sold the said land in favour of
respondent No.4 under a registered sale deed dated
30.04.1984. He submits that the petitioners have
filed the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act
after lapse of more than 36 years from the date of
execution of registered sale deed. He submits that
the said sale transaction is in violation of Section 4 of
the PTCL Act. He submits that there is an inordinate
delay in filing the application. In support of his
contention he has relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA
LAKSHMI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. [(2020)14
SCC 232]. He further submits that respondent No.2
without examining the said aspect has passed the
impugned order. He submits that the order passed by
respondent No.2 is arbitrary and capricious. Hence,
on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ
petition.
6. Learned HCGP 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 Sri.Venkatagiriyappa in the year
1950 and the said land was bequeathed in favour of
Smt.Venkatamma under a registered gift deed dated
07.09.1968. The petitioners have purchased the said
land from Smt.Venkatamma under a registered sale
deed dated 05.09.1974. The petitioners in turn have
sold the said land in favour of respondent No.4 under
a registered sale deed dated 30.04.1984. On the
strength of the registered sale deed, the property was
transferred in the name of respondent No.4. The
petitioners have filed the application under Section 5
of the PTCL Act, in the year 2010, after lapse of 36
years from the date of execution of registered sale
deed. The petitioners have failed to explain the delay
in filing the application under Section 5 of the PTCL
Act. Respondent No.2 allowed the appeal solely on
the ground that the application was not filed well
within the reasonable time. Respondent No.2 has
relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court
and held that the application filed by the petitioners is
beyond reasonable time and consequently allowed the
appeal and set aside the order passed by respondent
No.3.
9. Thus, there is an inordinate delay in filing the
application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act by the
petitioners. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI (supra), has observed in
Para No.8, 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."
10. Respondent No.2 after re-appreciating the
materials on record was justified in recording the
finding that the application was not filed well within
the reasonable time and consequently dismissed the
appeal. Hence, I do not find any grounds to interfere
with the impugned order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE
rs/GRD
