Karnataka High Court

Sri S M Rajappa vs The Deputy Commissioner 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.40045 OF 2012 ( SC -ST)

BETWEEN:

SRI. S. M. RAJAPPA
S/O LATE MARILINGAPPA MADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/A SUNNAGERE VILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
REP. BY GPA HOLDER
S C YOGESH
                                         ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. D.R. BASAVARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
    DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
    DAVANAGERE-577 001.

2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
    DAVANAGERE SUB DIVISION
    DAVANAGERE-577 001.

3 . SMT. JAYAMMA
    W/O RAJAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
                              2




    R/AT AJJIHALLI VILLAGE
    CHANNAGIRI TALUK
    DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
                                         .....RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SANDESH KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-1 AND R-2
    SRI. THIPPESWAMY T., ADVOCATE FOR R-3)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.9.12, PASSED
BY THE R-1 VIDE ANN-K & THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
19.11.08 PASSED BY THE LEARNED R-2 VIDE ANN-H BY
ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION.

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

                        ORDER

The petitioner being aggrieved by the order

dated 14.09.2012 passed by respondent No.1, vide

Annexure-K and the order dated 19.11.2008 passed

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

writ petition.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition

are as under:

The land in Sy.No.11/4, measuring 5 acres 25

guntas situated at Dondraghatta Village, Channagiri

Taluk was granted by Tahsildar in favour of

Hanumappa i.e., father of respondent No.3 on

27.07.1950 and 16.05.1951 under upset price with a

condition not to alienate the aforesaid land for a

period of 15 years and saguvali chit was issued on

27.07.1950. The original grantee died leaving behind

his three daughters namely Hanumakka, Nelamma

and Jayamma. The daughters of the original grantee

sold the said land in favour of the petitioner on

11.02.1993. On the strength of the registered sale

deed name of the petitioner was entered in the

revenue records. The legal representative of the

deceased Hanumappa i.e., respondent No.3 has 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.2. Respondent No.2

after holding due enquiry allowed the application filed

by respondent No.3. The petitioner being aggrieved

by the order passed by respondent No.2 preferred an

appeal before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1

confirmed the order passed by respondent No.2 and

consequently dismissed the appeal. Hence, the

petitioner has filed this writ petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned

HCGP for respondents No.1 and 2 and learned counsel

for respondent No.3.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the land was granted in favour of Hanumappa.

He died leaving behind his three daughters namely

Hanumakka, Nelamma and Jayamma, who have

jointly sold the said land in favour of the petitioner

under a registered sale deed dated 11.02.1993.

Respondent No.3 filed an application under Section 5

of the PTCL Act, in the year 2007 i.e., after lapse of

more than 14 years from the date of execution of the

registered sale deed. He submits that there is an

inordinate delay in filing the application. The said

aspect was not considered by respondents No.1 and 2.

Hence, he submits that the impugned orders passed

by respondents No.1 and 2 are arbitrary and contrary

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

case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS. STATE OF

KARNATAKA & ANR. [2020(14) SCC 232]. Hence, on

these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent

No.3 submits that the land was granted in favour of

Hanumappa. The daughters of Hanumappa have sold

the land in favour of the petitioner which is in violation

of Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act. He submits that

respondents No.1 and 2 were justified in passing the

impugned order and submits that the same do not call

for any interference. Hence, on these grounds, he

prays to dismiss the writ petition.

6. Learned HCGP adopts the arguments of

learned counsel for respondent No.3.

7. Perused the records and considered the

submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

8. It is not in dispute that the land in

Sy.No.11/4 measuring 5 acres 25 guntas was granted

in favour of Hanumappa on 27.07.1950 on the same

day saguvali chit was issued in favour of Hanumappa.

The said Hanumappa died leaving behind his three

daughters namely Hanumakka, Nelamma and

Jayamma and they have jointly sold the land in favour

of petitioner under a registered sale deed dated

11.02.1993. On the strength of the registered sale

deed, the name of the petitioner was entered in the

revenue records. After lapse of more than 14 years

respondent No.3 filed the application under Section 5

of the PTCL Act. Respondent No.3 has not explained

the delay in filing the application under Section 5 of

the PTCL Act. 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."

9. The application filed by respondent No.3 is

not within a reasonable time. Hence, in view of the

above law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court,

respondents No.1 and 2 have committed an error in

entertaining the application filed after lapse of more

than 14 years. The respondent No.1 without properly

considering the materials on record has confirmed the

order passed by respondent No.2. Respondents No.1

and 2 without considering the ground of delay in

invoking Section 5 of the PTCL Act, have passed the

impugned orders. The impugned orders passed by

respondents No.1 and 2 are arbitrary and capricious