Karnataka High Court
Sri Krishnappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 December, 2021
Bench: Ashok S.Kinagi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.13262 OF 2020 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. KRISHNAPPA
S/O. LATE. MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT NO. 38, DURGATHAAYI COLONY,
TMC WARD NO. 12,
VIJAYAPURA TOWN,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 135.
2. SRI. VENKATESH KUMAR
S/O. LATE. NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT 47, REHAMATH NAGAR,
VIJAYAPURA TOWN,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 135.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
2
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
MS BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING,
1ST FLOOR, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE,
KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562 110.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DODDABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION,
DODDABALLAPUR,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.
4. SRI. HARISH
S/O. THIRUMALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT WARD NO. 12,
DURGADEVI COLONY,
VIJAYAPURA TOWN, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 135.
5. SRI. B M KRISHNAPPA
S/O. LATE. POLICE MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS
R/AT VIJAYAPURA TOWN,
DEVENAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 135.
SRI. PILLAMUNISHAMAPPA,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS,
NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD BEFORE THE
RESPONDENT NO. 2
6. SRI. PRAKASH
S/O. PILLAMUNISHAMAPPA,
3
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT NEAR GURRAPPA MATA,
VIJAYAPURA TOWN, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 135.
7. SRI. D. VENKATESH
S/O. LATE DONNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT DORATHAYI COLONY,
VIJAYAPURA TOWN, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 135.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SESHU, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3
SRI. V. MUNIRAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R-4
SRI. Y. VENKATESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-7
R-6 SERVED, NOTICE TO R-5 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH / SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.09.2020
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT No.2 IN ANNEXURE-A
HOLDING THE SAME AS ILLEGAL; QUASH / SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 22.12.2017 PASSED BY THE R-3 IN
ANNEXURE-B HOLDING THE SALE AS ILLEGAL.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
4
ORDER
The petitioners being aggrieved by the order
dated 11.09.2020, passed by respondent No.2, vide
Annexure-A and order dated 22.12.2017, passed by
respondent No.3, vide Annexure-B have filed the
present writ petition.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition
are as under:
The land in Sy.No.160/2 (New Sy.No.450)
measuring to an extent of 2 acres situated at
Vijayapura Village, Vijayapura Hobli, Devanahalli
Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District was granted in favour
of one Muniswamy i.e., grand-father of respondent
No.4 on 18.08.1955 with a condition that the land
shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years from
the date of grant and accordingly saguvali chit was
issued in favour of the grantee. The original grantee
had sold some portion of the land in favour of one
B.M. Krishnappa under a registered sale deed dated
10.06.1965 and a portion of land in favour of one
Pillamuniswamappa under a registered sale deed
dated 10.06.1965. B.M.Krishnappa in turn sold the
said land in favour of M. Pillamuniswamappa under a
registered sale deed dated 16.12.1967. The said
Pillamuniswamappa sold the land in favour of one
Muniyappa S/o Karahalli Tayappa i.e., father of
petitioner No.1 under a registered sale deed dated
24.04.1970. Respondent No.4 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 claiming that the registered sale
deed executed by the original grantee in favour of
B.M.Krishnappa and one Pillamuniswamappa are in
violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act. Respondent
No.3 after due enquiry allowed the application filed by
respondent No.4 vide order dated 22.12.2017. The
petitioners being aggrieved by the order passed by
respondent No.3 preferred an appeal before
respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 confirmed the
order passed by respondent No.3 and consequently
dismissed the appeal. Hence, the petitioners being
aggrieved by the orders passed by respondents No.2
and 3 have filed this writ petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned HCGP for respondents No.1 to 3 and learned
counsel for respondents No.4 and 7.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the first sale deed was executed on 10.06.1965
and respondent No.4 has filed the application under
Section 5 of the PTCL Act in the year 2014-15. He
submits that the application filed by respondent No.4
is after a lapse of more than 49 years from the date of
execution of the first sale deed and 34 years from the
PTCL Act came into force. He submits that there is an
inordinate delay in filing the application under Section
5 of the PTCL Act by respondent No.4. He submits
that respondent No.3 without considering the points of
limitation has passed the impugned order. Further, he
submits that respondent No.2 has committed an error
in confirming the order passed by respondent No.3.
In support of his contention, he 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. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to
allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent No.4 submits that the land was granted in
favour of one Muniswamy i.e., the grand-father of
respondent No.4. The sale deed executed by original
grantee is in violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act.
He further submits that respondent No.3, after due
enquiry held that the sale transaction is in violation of
Section 4 of the PTCL Act. Hence, he submits that the
impugned orders passed by respondent No.2 and 3
are justified and proper does not call for any
interference. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to
dismiss the writ petition.
6. 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 in question
was granted in favour of one Muniswamy i.e., grand-
father of respondent No.4, under grant order dated
18.08.1955 and saguvali chit was issued in favour of
the grantee. The original grantee had sold the portion
of land in favour of B.M.Krishnappa under a registered
sale deed dated 10.06.1965 and the remaining portion
of land in favour of Pillamuniswamappa on the same
day under two different sale deeds. B.M.Krishnappa
had sold the land in favour of Pillamuniswamappa
under a registered sale deed dated 16.12.1967. The
said Pillamuniswamappa in turn sold the land in favour
of father of the petitioner No.1 under a registered sale
deed dated 24.04.1970. The PTCL Act came into force
on 01.01.1979. After the Act came into force,
respondent No.4 filed an application under Section 5
of the PTCL Act, seeking for cancellation of the
registered sale deed dated 10.06.1965, on the ground
that the sale transaction took place without obtaining
prior permission from the Government. Respondent
No.3 without examining the point of limitation has
proceeded to pass the order allowing the application
filed by respondent No.4 and has recorded a finding
that the sale transaction is in violation of Section 4 of
the PTCL Act. Respondent No.2 on re-appreciation
the material on record confirmed the order passed by
respondent No.3. Respondent No.4 has filed the
application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, after a
lapse of more than 49 years from the date of
execution of registered sale deed and 34 years of the
Act came into force. Further, respondent No.4 has
not explained the delay in filing the application at a
belated stage. Thus, there is an inordinate delay in
filing the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI (SUPRA) has held that
though the PTCL Act provides no limitation for filing an
application for invoking the provisions but it has to be
invoked within a reasonable time. In the present
case, there is an inordinate delay in filing the
application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act.
Respondents No.2 and 3 without considering the said
aspect have proceeded to pass the impugned orders.
The impugned orders passed by respondents No.2 and
3 are arbitrary and capricious and contrary to the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in NEKKANTI
RAMA LAKSHMI (SUPRA).
10. In view of the above discussion, I proceed
to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed;
ii. The impugned orders passed by
respondent No.2 and 3 are
hereby set aside and quashed.
SD/-
JUDGE
rs/GRD
