Sri B V Chandrashekar vs The Special Deputy Commissioner
2021 Latest Caselaw 4939 Kant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021

                      BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

   WRIT PETITION NO.39136 OF 2011 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:

SRI. B V CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O. B VENKATAPPA
R/A THYAGARAJ ROAD,
ANEKAL TOWN, KASABA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.
                                    ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MITHURI G.A., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
    BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
    BANGALORE.

2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
    BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION
    BANGALORE.

3 . SRI. MAHESHA
    S/O. LAKSHMAIAH
    AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

4 . SRI MUKUNDA
    S/O. LAKSHMAIAH
    AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
                             2




    RESPONDENT No.3 AND 4 ARE
    R/A KODI CHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE
    I.A.M. POST,
    BENGALURU - 560 068.
                                        ....RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. M. SANDESH KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-1 AND R-2
    SRI. K.R. NAGESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 AND R-4)


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 23.8.10 PASSED BY R2 IE.,
ANNX-D AS WELL AS THE ORDER DATED 5.9.11 PASSED
BY RESPONDENT No.1 VIDE ANNX-E IN RESPECT OF 0-30
GUNTAS OF LAND IN SY NO.95 OF SOLUR VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK AND TO GRANT SUCH
OTHER RELIEF/S.

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

                       ORDER

The petitioner being aggrieved by the order

dated 23.8.2010 passed by respondent No.2 vide

Annexure-D and order dated 5.9.2011 passed by

respondent No.1 vide Annexure-E in respect of 0.30

guntas of land in Sy.No.95 of Solur Village, Kasaba

Hobli, Anekal Taluk has filed the present writ petition.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition

are as under:

The land in Sy.No.95 measuring 0.30 guntas was

granted in favour of one Donneppa @ Muniyappa s/o

Thopaiah. The said land was the subject matter of

alienation in the year 1994 in favour of the petitioner

under registered sale deed dated 18.4.1994. The

petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the same

on the strength of the registered sale deed dated

18.4.1994. Respondents No.3 and 4, being the sons

of the petitioner's vendor filed an application under

Section 5 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain lands) Act

1978 (for short 'the PTCL Act') alleging that there is a

violation of grant conditions and filed an application

before respondent No.2 under Section 5 of the PTCL

Act for declaration of sale deed dated 18.4.1994 as

null and void and for resumption of land. Respondent

No.2 after holding an enquiry allowed the application

and declared the sale deed as null and void and

directed to deliver possession. The petitioner being

aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.2

filed an appeal before respondent No.1. Respondent

No.1 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

Hence, this writ petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and

learned HCGP for respondents No.1 and 2. Though

respondents No.3 and 4 were represented by a

counsel, when called out, none appeared and hence

the argument of learned counsel for respondents No.

3 and 4 is taken as nil.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that sale deed was executed on 18.4.1994 and

respondents No.3 and 4 have filed an application

under Section 5 of the PTCL Act after 12 years from

the date of execution of the registered sale deed. He

relies on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS. STATE

OF KARNATAKA & ANR. ([2020) (14) SUPREME COURT

CASES 232 and the judgment rendered in MR.VIVEK H

HINDUJA AND OTHERS v. MR. ASWATHA AND

OTHERS reported in 2019 Kar.L.J. 819 (SC) wherein it

has been held that delay in filing the application for

restoration under Section 5 of the PTCL Act cannot be

entertained. He further submits that respondents

No.3 and 4 have not filed an application within a

reasonable time. Thus, there is a delay of around 12

years in filing the application. Hence, respondent

No.2 ought to have rejected the application on the

ground of delay and laches but on the contrary, have

allowed the application filed by respondents No.3 and

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

petition.

5. Learned HCGP supports the impugned order.

6. Perused the records and considered the

submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7. It is not in dispute that the land was granted

in favour of Doneppa in the year 1977 subject to

certain conditions. The petitioner has purchased the

land in question under registered sale deed on

18.4.1994. On the strength of the registered sale

deed, name of the petitioner was entered in the

revenue records. In the year 2006, respondents No.3

and 4 filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL

Act alleging that the registered sale deed is in

contravention to Section 4 of the PTCL Act.

Respondent No.2 without considering the ground of

delay and laches in filing an application under Section

5 of the PTCL Act has proceeded to allow the

application and respondent No.1 without properly

appreciating the ground of delay and laches has

affirmed the order passed by respondent No.2. In

view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMII supra, since

there is a delay of 12 years in filing the application, on

the ground of delay and laches the application filed by

respondents No.3 and 4 is liable to be rejected.

In view of the above discussion, the following

order is passed :

ORDER

i) The writ petition is allowed.

ii) The impugned orders are set aside.

SD/-

JUDGE

rs