Karnataka High Court

Adinarayanappa vs State Of Karnataka on 6 June, 2022

Bench: Alok Aradhe, J.M.Khazi

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

                         PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                            AND

           THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI


            WRIT APPEAL NO.1049/2021 (SC-ST)

BETWEEN:

1.     ADINARAYANAPPA
       S/O LATE VADAGIRI NARASIMHAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
       R/O KADEHALLI VILLAGE
       KASABA HOBLI, GUDIBANDE TALUK
       CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 561 209


2.     NARASIMHAPPA
       S/O RAMAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
       R/AT GUNDLAHALLI VILLAGE
       KASABA HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK
       CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT

3.     NARAYANAPPA
       S/O LATE ADEPPA
       AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
       R/AT KARAKURU VILLAGE
       KASABA HOBLI
       BAGEPALLI TALUK - 561 207           ... APPELLANTS

     (BY SRI.JAI PRAKASH REDDY M, ADV.)
                               2
AND:

  1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REP. BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT
     MULTISTORIED BUILDING VIKASA SOUDHA
     BANGALORE - 560 001

  2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     CHICKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT
     CHICKKABALLAPUR - 562 101

  3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
     CHICKKABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION
     CHICKKABALLAPURA - 562 101

  4. VENKATASHIVA REDDY
     S/O LATE CHINNAPPA REDDY
     AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
     R/AT KADEHALLI VILLAGE
     KASABA HOBLI, GUDIBANDE TALUK
     CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 561 209

  5. ALUVELAMMA
     D/O LATE CHINNAPPA REDDY
     W/O RAJA REDDY
     AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
     R/AT CHIKKAKURLAHALLI VILLAGE
     KASABA HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK
     CHICKKBALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 101
                                     ...RESPONDENTS

       (BY SMT.VANI H, AGA)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 09.03.2020 IN W.P.NO.39682/2014 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT AND DISMISS
W.P.NO.39682/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE.

    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING :
                             3

                       JUDGMENT

Mr.Jai Prakash Reddy, learned Counsel for the

appellant.

Smt.Vani H, learned additional Government

Advocate for the respondents.

Heard on the question of admission.

2. This intra-Court appeal has been filed under

Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961

against an order dated 09.03.2020 passed by the

learned Single Judge by which the writ petition

preferred by respondent Nos.4 and 5 has been allowed

and the order dated 14.07.2014 passed by the Deputy

Commissioner under the provisions of the Karnataka

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of

Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the

PTCL Act') has been quashed.

3. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal

briefly stated are that the land bearing Sy.No.78 (New

Sy.No.98/P1) measuring 5 acres situate at

Kondireddypalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Bagepalli Taluk

was granted in favour of one Vadagiripalli

Narasimhappa under Darkasth Rules in the year

1945-46 on a condition that he would have no right to

alienate the same. However, original grantee in

contravention of the aforesaid condition sold 3 acres of

land in favour of one Chinnappa Reddy viz., the father

of respondent Nos.4 and 5 by sale deed dated

03.05.1968. Remaining 2 acres of land was sold in

favour of one Adeppa under a sale deed dated

06.05.1968. Thereafter, father of respondent Nos.4 and

5 purchased the same from the aforesaid Chinnappa

Reddy by sale deed dated 06.10.1968. Thereafter,

father of respondent Nos.4 and 5 sold 2 acres of land in

favour of Ashwathamma on 10.07.1974.

4. The application for resumption of the land

under the provisions of the Act was filed in the year

2008 by the appellants. The Assistant Commissioner by

order dated 14.08.2009 rejected the application on the

ground that the appellants have failed to prove that the

land in question is a granted land. The appellants

thereupon filed the appeal before the Deputy

Commissioner which has been allowed by an order

dated 14.07.2014.

challenged the order passed by the Deputy

Commissioner in the writ petition. The said writ

petition was allowed by the learned single Judge by

order dated 09.03.2020 interalia on the ground that

there is inordinate delay of more than 29 years in

seeking resumption of the land. In the aforesaid facts

and background, this appeal has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated

that the delay could not be termed as unreasonable and

therefore ought not to have allowed the writ petition.

7. We have heard the submission made by

learned counsel for the appellant and perused the

records.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

AND ANOTHER reported in 2017 SCC Online SC 1862 has

held as hereinbelow:

"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."

9. Thus, undoubtedly the land in dispute was

granted under the Darkhast Rules in the year 1945-46

and the sale has taken place in the year 1968. The

application for resumption under the Act was filed after

the inordinate delay of 29 years in the year 2008.

Therefore the learned Single Judge, in view of the

aforementioned legal principles, has rightly set aside the

order passed by the Deputy Commissioner.

10. The application filed seeking resumption of

the land was made after 29 years. However, the Deputy

Commissioner has failed to take into consideration the

aforesaid aspects while passing the impugned order.