Karnataka High Court

Ikram Pasha 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.5331 OF 2014 (SC-ST)

BETWEEN:

IKRAM PASHA
S/O LATE NOORULLA PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1, LAWREL LANE,
RICHMOND TOWN,
BANGALORE-560 025,
REPRESENTED BY
G.P.A HOLDER RUQUIA PASHA,
W/O IKRAM PASHA,
R/AT NO.246, 1ST MAIN.
RMV 2ND STAGE DOLARS COLONY,
BANGALORE-560 094.
                                     ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. L. NARASIMHA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI. S N ASWATHANARAYAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
    REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
    REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
    M.S.BUILDING,
    BANGALORE-560 001.
                                        2




2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
    CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT,
    CHICKBALLAPUR-560 201.

3 . THE ASST. COMMISSIONER
    CHICKBALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION,
    CHICKBALLAPUR-560201.

4 . *SRI. VENKATESH
    S/O VENKATARAYAPPA
    AGED ABOUT MAJOR
    R/A. JATHAVARAHOSAHALLI
    NANDI HOBLI
    CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK - 560 201
    CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT.
                                               ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SHESHU, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.1.2011 PASSED BY THE
ASST. COMMISSIONER, CHICKBALLAPUR SUB DIVISION,
CHICKBALLAPUR VIDE ANN-B AND THE ORDER DATED
30.10.2013 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT, CHICKBALLAPUR VIDE ANN-C.


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



 Corrected vide Court order dated 15.02.2022
                                3




                         ORDER

The petitioner being aggrieved by the order

dated 31.01.2011, passed by respondent No.3, vide

Annexure-B and order dated 30.10.2013, passed by

respondent No.2, vide Annexure-C has filed the

present writ petition.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition

are as under:

That the land in Sy.No.10/57, new Sy.No.10

measuring to an extent of 18 acres of Balajigapade

Village, Nandi Hobli, Chickballapur Taluk, was granted

in favour of 6 persons to an extent of 3 acres each at

an upset price was granted in favour of

Sri.Venkatarayappa S/o Chikkagurappa under the

Darkhast Grant No.2379/74-75 dated 29.10.1977.

Respondent No.4 i.e., the son of the original grantee -

Venkatarayappa filed an application before respondent

No.3 stating that the original grantee has sold the

grant land under a registered sale deed dated

16.04.1996 in favour of the petitioner by violating the

provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and

Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain

Lands) Act, 1978 ('the PTCL Act' for short) and sought

for restoration of land. Respondent No.3, after

holding an enquiry, allowed the application filed by

respondent No.4. The petitioner being aggrieved by

the order passed by respondent No.3, preferred an

appeal before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has

confirmed the order passed by respondent No.3.

Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition

challenging the orders passed by respondent Nos.2

and 3.

3. Though notice was issued to respondent

No.4, respondent No.4 remained absent.

4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and

learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the land was granted in favour of

Sri.Venkatarayappa S/o Chikkagurappa in the year

1977. The original grantee had executed a registered

sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 16.04.1996,

after completion of non-alienation period of 15 years.

After lapse of 11 years from the date of execution of

the registered sale deed, respondent No.4 filed an

application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. He

submits that respondent No.4 has not explained the

delay in filing the application under Section 5 of the

PTCL Act. He submits that respondent No.3 ought to

have rejected the application filed under Section 5 of

the PTCL Act, on the ground of delay and latches.

Without considering the same, respondent No.3 has

passed the impugned order and the same has been

confirmed by respondent. No.2. Thus, the impugned

orders passed by respondents No.2 and 3 are

arbitrary perverse and capricious. Hence, on these

grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

6. Per contra, learned HCGP supports the

impugned orders.

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.Venkatarayappa S/o

Chikkagurappa on 29.10.1977 and saguvali chit was

issued on 28.10.1982. The original grantee had sold

the land in favour of the petitioner under a registered

sale deed dated 16.04.1996. He submits that the

application is filed in the year 2007 i.e., after lapse of

11 years. Thus, the respondent No.4 has filed the

application after lapse of more than 11 years and has

not explained the reason for filing the application at a

belated stage. 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, has observed 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'."

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that though

no limitation has been prescribed under the PTCL Act,

but still the said application must be filed within a

reasonable time. In the present case, the application

was filed after lapse of 11 years from the date of

execution of registered sale deed. Respondent No.4

has not explained the reason in filing the application

at a belated stage.

10. Respondent No.3 ought to have rejected

the application on the ground of delay and latches, on

the contrary has allowed the application and

respondent No.2 has confirmed the order passed by