Rajanna vs The Assistant Commissioner
2021 Latest Caselaw 6352 Kant

     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.4950 OF 2014 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:

1.     RAJANNA
       S/O T. VENKATARAYAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

2.     V. MUNEGOWDA
       S/O. T. VENKATARAYAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

       BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF
       JATHAVAR HOSAHALLI VILLAGE
       NANDI HOBLI
       CHICKBALLAPUR - 562 101.
                                         ...PETITIONERS
       (BY SRI B S RAVINDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1.     THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
       CHICKBALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION
       CHICKBALLAPUR - 562 101.

2.     MUNEPPA S/O. RAMAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
       HANUMANTHAPURA VILLAGE
       KASABA HOBLI
       SIDDALAGHATTA TALUK &
       PIN - 562 105.
                               2




3.     THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
       CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT
       CHICKBALLAPUR - 562 101.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SANDESH KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 & R3
    SRI. RAJESHWARA P N, ADV. FOR R2)

          THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
     226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
     TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN PTCL
     (CH) 120/2006-07 ON 23.11.2009 VIDE ANNEX-E BY
     THE   R1   AND   CONFIRMED     BY  THE  R3   IN
     RA/SCST/37/2009-10 ON 20.01.2014 VIDE ANNEX-G
     AND ETC.,

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

                         ORDER

The petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated

23.11.2009 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-E

and order dated 20.01.2014 passed by respondent No.3

vide Annexure-G, have filed this writ petition.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition

are that:

The land bearing survey No.10, Block 1, re-survey

No.81 measuring 2 acres situated at Jathavara Hosahalli,

Nandi Hobli, Chickballapur was granted in favour of

Thayappa S/o Muniyappa for upset price on 22.01.1973.

The said Thayappa died leaving behind his wife Smt.

Gangamma. After lapse of non alienation period, wife of

original grantee Smt. Gangamma sold the said land in

favour of father of the petitioners under registered sale

deed dated 02.06.1988. It is alleged that respondent No.2

is not related to the original grantee filed an application

Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands)

Act, 1978 (for short 'the PTCL Act') contending that sale

deed executed by Smt. Gangamma in favour of father of

petitioners is in violation of Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act

before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 after holding an

enquiry, allowed the application filed by the respondent

No.2 vide order dated 23.11.2009. The petitioners being

aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.1,

preferred an appeal before respondent No.3. Respondent

No.3 after hearing the parties confirmed the order passed

by respondent No.1 and consequently dismissed the

appeal. The petitioners being aggrieved by the orders

passed by respondent No.1 & 3, have filed this writ

petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,

learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 and 3 and also learned

counsel for respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that the original grantee's wife namely Smt. Gangamma

had sold the land in question in favour of father of

petitioners on 02.06.1988. He submits that respondent

No.2 is not relating to the original grantee has filed an

application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act in the year

2006. Respondent No.1 without considering the point of

delay in filing an application has proceeded to pass the

order by allowing the application filed by respondent No.2.

He submits that the impugned order passed by respondent

Nos.1 and 3 are contrary to law laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs

State of Karnataka and another reported in 2018(1)

Kar.L.R 5 (SC) and in the case of Vivek M. Hinduja and

others vs M. Ashwatha and others reported in

2018(1) Kar.L.R. 176 (SC). Thus, there is inordinate

delay of more than 17 years in filing an application from

the date of execution of registered sale deed. The said

facts were not considered by respondent Nos.1 and 3.

Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ

petition.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent

No.2 submits that sale deed executed by Smt. Gangamma

in favour of father of petitioners is in violation of Section

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

Commissioner has recorded a finding that sale is in

violation of Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act and respondent

No.3 has confirmed the said order. He submits that the

impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 3 are

just and proper and does not call for any interference.

Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ

petition.

6. On the other hand, learned HCGP adopts the

arguments of respondent No.2.

7. Heard and perused the records and considered

the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

8. The land in question was granted in favour of

one Sri Thayappa on 22.01.1973 for upset price. The said

Thyappa died leaving behind his wife Smt. Gangamma.

Smt. Gangamma after expiry of non-alienation period,

executed a registered sale deed in favour of father of the

petitioners on 02.06.1988. On the strength of registered

sale deed, the name of father of petitioners was entered in

the revenue records. Father of petitioners died leaving

behind the petitioners. After his demise, the property was

transferred into the name of the petitioners and the

petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the land in

question. After lapse of more than 17 years, respondent

No.2 filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act

alleging that sale transactions are in violation of Section 4

of the PTCL Act before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1

without considering the point of delay proceeded to allow

the application filed by the respondent No.2. Admittedly,

application was filed by respondent No.2 after more than

17 years. Hence, there is inordinate delay in invoking

Section 5 of the PTCL Act by the respondent No.2.

9. In view of the law laid by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra), it

is observed in para No.8 which reads 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. In view of the law laid by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Vivek M. Hinduja (supra), it is

observed in para No.10 which reads as under:

"10. We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid observations. It is, however, necessary to add that where limitation is not prescribed, the party ought to approach the competent Court or authority within reasonable time, beyond which no relief can be granted. As decided earlier, this principle would apply even motuactions."

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama

Lakshmi's (supra) case held that though no limitation is

prescribed under the PTCL Act but provision PTCL Act must

be invoked within the reasonable time in the present case.

Application is filed after lapse of more than 17 years from

the date of execution of registered sale deed. Thus, there

is inordinate delay in filing an application under Section 5

of PTCL by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has not

explained the delay in filing said application. In the

absence of explanation of delay, respondent No.1 ought to

have reject application on contrary allowed the application

and respondent No.3 confirmed the order passed by

respondent No.1. Thus, the impugned orders passed by

respondent Nos.1 and 3 are arbitrary and erroneous and

contrary to law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

Hence, the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.1

& 3 are liable to be set aside. In view of the above

discussions, I proceed to pass the following:-

::ORDER::

Writ Petition is allowed.

Impugned order dated 23.11.2009 passed

by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-E and

order by respondent No.3 dated 20.01.2014

vide Annexure-G are hereby quashed and set

aside.

SD/-

JUDGE

nms