Sri G Nataraj vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 4039 Kant

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 4039 Kant
Judgement Date : 12 November, 2021

Karnataka High Court

Sri G Nataraj vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 November, 2021

Bench: Ashok S.Kinagi

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

                         BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK.S.KINAGI

       WRIT PETITION NO.12161 OF 2019 (SC/ST)

BETWEEN:

SRI G NATARAJ
S/O GOVINDASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
RESIDING AT LAKKUDODDI
VENKATAPURA VILLAGE
BYRAKURU HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT
                                          ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.S.VISWESWARAIAH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
       DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
       M S BUILDING
       VIDHANASOUDHA
       DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
       BANGALORE-560 001

2.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
       KOLAR DISTRICT
       KOLAR-563101

3.     THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
       KOLAR SUB DIVISION
       KOLAR-563101

4.     THE TAHASILDAR
       MULBAGAL TALUK
                              -2-




      KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131

5.    SMT CHENGAMMA
      W/O VENKATARAMA BHOVI
      AGED MAJOR
      RESIDING AT KERASAMANGALA VILLAGE,
      BYRAKURU HOBLI,
      MULBAGAL TALUK
      KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131
                                      ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.SANDESH KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4;
 R5 - SERVED UNREPRESENTED)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2, DATED 07.02.2018
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
R-3, DATED 28.07.2016 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B BY
ALLOWING THE W.P. AND ETC.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
                         ORDER

The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated

28.07.2016 passed by respondent No.3 confirmed in the

appeal by respondent No.2 by order dated 07.02.2018 vide

Annexure-A, has filed this writ petition.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition

are that:

guntas was originally belonged to the Government and on

the application filed by respondent No.5 for grant of land

under Darkasth, Darkasth Committee has sanctioned

Sy.No.26 measuring 1 acre 21 guntas in the name of

respondent No.5 on 18.01.1975. Pursuant to the grant,

respondent No.5 sold the said land in favour of the

petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 24.06.2004.

Respondent No.5 after lapse of 11 years filed the

application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer

Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'PTCL Act').

Respondent No.3 allowed the application filed by the

petitioner and declared the sale deed executed by

respondent No.5 in favour of the petitioner as null and void

and further ordered to restore the possession in favour of

respondent No.5.

3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order

passed by respondent No.3 preferred an appeal before

respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 dismissed the appeal

filed by the petitioner and confirmed the order passed by

respondent No.3. Hence, the petitioner being aggrieved by

the order passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3, has filed this

writ petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and also the learned counsel for the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner has purchased the property on 24.06.2004

and respondent No.5 has filed an application under the

PTCL Act after lapse of more than 11 years and placed the

reliance on the judgment. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case

of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs State of Karnataka and

another reported in 2018(1) Kar.L.R 5 (SC) and

submits that the application was not filed within a

reasonable time. He further submits that respondent Nos.2

and 3 without considering the aspect of delay and latches

has proceeded to pass the impugned order. Hence, on

these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents supports

the impugned order.

7. Though the notice was served on respondent

No.5, he remained unrepresented.

8. Heard and perused the records and considered

the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

9. It is not in dispute that the land bearing

Sy.No.26 measuring 1 acre 21 guntas was granted in

favour of respondent No.5 on 18.01.1975. Pursuant to the

grant made in favour of respondent No.5, respondent No.5

has sold the said land in favur of the petitioner under a

registered sale deed dated 24.06.2004. After lapse of 11

years, respondent No.3 has filed an application under the

PTCL Act. Respondent No.5 has not approached the

authorities within a reasonable time. In view of the law laid

by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama

Lakshmi (supra) the application has to be filed within a

reasonable time. 11 years is not a reasonable time. Hence,

on these grounds, the impugned order is liable to be set

aside.

10. Hence, in view of the above discussion, I pass

the following:

ORDER

i. Writ Petition is allowed.

ii. The impugned order passed by respondent

No.2 in case No.Dgï.J/J¸ï.¹/J¸ï.n./14/2016-17

dated 07.02.2018 vide Annexure-A and the

impugned order passed by respondent No.3 in

case No.J¯ï.J£ï.r.J¹ì.J¸ïn.08/2013-14 dated

28.07.2017 at Annexure-B are hereby set

aside.