Karnataka High Court
Venkatesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 February, 2022
Bench: Chief Justice, Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT APPEAL NO.113 OF 2022 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
1. VENKATESH
S/O VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
2. SRINIVASA
S/O VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
3. VENKATAPPA
S/O YERRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
APPELLANTS 1 TO 3 ARE
R/A CHIKKATHIMMANAHALLI VILLAGE
YELLAMPALLI MAJARA,
KASABA HOBLI,
BAGEPALLI TALUK - 561 207
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI CHETHAN.A.C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S.BUILDING,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
-2-
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT
CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562 101
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHIKKABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION
CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562 101
4. P.N.NANJUNDAPPA
S/O GORIA NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/A PEDDATHUMIKEPALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI,
BAGEPALLI TALUK - 561 207
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT
5. A.MUTHYALAPPA
S/O LATE ADINARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/A MALLEPALLI VILLAGE
SOMENAHALLI HOBLI
GUDIBANDE TALUK - 561 209
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.N.ASWATHANARAYANA, SR.ADV. FOR
SRI.N.DEVENDRA, ADV. FOR C/R5
SRI.S.RAJASHEKARA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
DATED 06.12.2021 IN WP NO.27798/2019 ALLOWING THE
WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT HEREIN
AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY,
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
JUDGMENT
As per the office note put up in the light of the order
passed by the Apex Court in Misc. Application No.21/2022
in suo motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3/2020 excluding the
delay in the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, the
delay of 28 years in fling the above appeal is condoned.
2. The above appeal has been filed seeking the
following reliefs:
"(a) Allow this appeal and set aside the
judgment dated 6.12.2021 in WP
No.27798/2019 allowing the writ petition filed
by the 5th respondent herein;
(b) Dismiss WP No.27798/2019
(SC/ST) and
(c) To grant such other relief or reliefs
as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the
facts and circumstances of the case in the
interest of justice and equity."
3. Writ petition No.27798/2019 had been filed
seeking for setting aside the order passed by respondent
No.2-Deputy Commissioner ordering for resumption of the
land said to be sold in violation of Section 4(1) of the
Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for
brevity 'PTCL Act').
4. It is contended that the said land was sold by
respondent No.6 in favour of respondent No.7 under
registered sale deed dated 11.07.1983, respondent No.7 in
turn sold the land in question in favour of the petitioner
under the registered sale deed dated 26.10.2006.
Thereafter, in the year 2011, respondent Nos.4 and 5
claiming to be children of respondent No.6 filed an
application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act before
respondent No.3 seeking for resumption of the land and
respondent No.3 by order dated 04.03.2011, allowed the
application filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act and
declared the registered sale deed dated 11.07.1983 and
26.10.2006, as null and void and ordered for resumption of
the land.
5. The petitioner had challenged the said order
before respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, who
confirmed the order of respondent No.3 vide order dated
26.10.2015. The petitioner claiming that he was not aware
of the order passed by respondent No.2-Deputy
Commissioner, challenged the said order of the Deputy
Commissioner in W.P.No.27798/2019.
6. Upon hearing the parties, learned Single Judge
held that the decisions of the Apex Court in Nekkanti
Rama Lakshmi Vs. State of Karnataka & anr. [(2020)
14 SCC 232] and Vivek M.Hinduja & ors vs.
M.Ashwatha & Ors [(2020) 14 SCC 228] would be
applicable to the facts of the case and that the delay of 23
years in filing the application under Section 5 of the PTCL
Act cannot be considered to be reasonable and as such, the
application under Section 5 being hopelessly delayed was
not maintainable.
7. As regards the delay in filing of the writ
petition, learned Single Judge accepting the reasons given
by the petitioner that the petitioner was not aware of the
order passed by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner,
the same not being communicated to the petitioner and
that the petitioner came to know about it only on enquiry,
condoned the delay of 3 years 8 months 6 days in filing the
writ petition. It is this order which is assailed before us.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the
decision of this Court in W.P.No.6515/2019 to contend that
once proceedings has attained finality, the same cannot be
reopened on account of the decisions of the Apex Court in
the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi and Vivek
M.Hinduja (supra).
9. On enquiry, he submits that the said decision
was not brought to the notice of learned Single Judge as
also that the said judgment has been stayed by this Court
in an appeal.
10. In view of the said fact, the said decision could
not be applicable and the decisions of the Apex Court would
be applicable to the given facts. Admittedly, there being a
delay of 23 years in filing the application under Section 5 of
the PTCL Act, the said delay of 23 years would fall within
the purview of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in
Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra), the same cannot be
said to be reasonable period of time in which the application
under Section 5 could have been filed. This aspect has been
considered by the learned Single Judge in his reasoned
judgment. There is no reason pointed out to interfere with
the said decision and in our considered opinion, there is no
reason to do so.
11. Hence, writ petition stands dismissed at the
stage of admission itself.
12. The pending interlocutory applications stand
disposed of.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
VM
