Ikram Pasha vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 6283 Kant

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.5327 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 . SMT. POOJAMMA
    W/O PILLA MUNIYAPPA,
    AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
    R/AT 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 DATED 30.10.2013 BY THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER        CHICKBALLAPUR         DISTRICT,
CHICKBALLAPUR VIDE ANN-C.


     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                               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.10/48, new Sy.No.10/P32

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, out of which land measuring 3 acres

was granted in favour of Sri.Nyathappa S/o

Yerragangappa under the Darkhast Grant No.2379/74-

75 dated 29.10.1977. Respondent No.4 being the

wife of one Pilla Muniyappa, brother of the original

grantee, filed an application before respondent No.3

stating that her husband and the original grantee -

Nyathappa have sold the grant land under a registered

sale deed dated 21.06.1996 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.Nyathappa

S/o Yerragangappa in the year 1977. The original

grantee and his brother one Pilla Muniyappa have

jointly executed a registered sale deed in favour of the

petitioner on 21.06.1996 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 for restoration. 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.Nyathappa S/o Yerragangappa

on 29.10.1977 and saguvali chit was issued on

28.10.1982. The original grantee and his brother -

Pilla Muniyappa have jointly sold the land in favour of

the petitioner under a registered sale deed dated

21.06.1996. 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

respondent No.3, which is contrary to the law laid

down by the Hon'be Apex Court in the judgments

referred supra. Thus, the orders passed by

respondents No.2 and 3 are arbitrary and capricious

and the same are liable to be set aside.

11. In view of the above discussion, the writ

petition is allowed, the impugned orders passed by

respondents No.2 and 3 are hereby quashed and set

aside.

SD/-

JUDGE

rs/GRD