Raju vs Chandappa And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 8602 Kant

                               1          W.P.No.205028/2018


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                           BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY

      WRIT PETITION No.205028/2018 (SC/ST)

BETWEEN:

Raju S/o Late Govindappa,
Age: 45 Years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Gobbur (B)-585265.
Tq. Afzalpur, Dist: Kalaburagi.
                                                  ... Petitioner

(By Sri. Ramchandra.K & Sri. Gurubasava Nayak, Advocates)


AND:

1.     Chandappa S/o Nagappa,
       Age: 63 Years, Occ: Agriculture,
       R/o Gobbur (B)-585265.
       Tq. Afzalpur, Dist. Kalaburagi.

2.     Basavaraj S/o Shantappa,
       Age: 48 Years, Occ: Agriculture,
       R/o Gobbur (B)-585265.
       Tq. Afzalpur, Dist. Kalaburagi.

3.     Maheboob Awarahalli,
       Age: 45 Years, Occ: Agriculture,
       R/o Gobbur (B)-585265.
       Tq. Afzalpur, dist. Kalaburagi.
                                2       W.P.No.205028/2018


4.    Pradeep S/o Shivanand Mankar,
      Age: 28 Years, Occ: Private Service,
      R/o C/o Shivanand Mankar,
      Near S.B.College,
      Kalaburagi-585103.

5.    Prashant S/o Shivanand Mankar,
      Age: 26 Years, Occ: Private Service,
      R/o C/o Shivanand Mankar,
      Near S.B.College,
      Kalaburagi-585103.
                                                ... Respondents
(By Sri. Amresh S.Roja, Advocate for R4 & R5;
Notice to R1 to R3 served)

       This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned
orders pass by the Deputy Commissioner Kalaburagi in File
No.R.P. PTCL No.01/2015-16 dated 14.11.2016 as per
Annexure-B and also the order of the Assistant Commissioner
Kalaburagi in File No.REV/LND/63/2013-14 dated 09.12.2015
is as per Annexure-A and etc.

     This petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court
made the following:

                        ORDER

The petitioner, who claims to be the legal heir of

the original grantee of the land bearing Survey No.176

totally measuring 30 acres 17 guntas situated at

Gobbur-B village, Afzalpur taluka, Kalaburagi district,

has preferred this writ petition with a prayer to quash

the order dated 09.12.2015 passed by the Assistant

Commissioner, Kalaburagi and the order dated

14.11.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner

confirming the order passed by the Assistant

Commissioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

as well as the learned counsel appearing for the

contesting respondents.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had

filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner

stating that the aforesaid land bearing Survey No.176

was granted to his father Govindappa, who belonged to

Scheduled Caste community and he also contended that

the sale transactions in respect of the aforesaid land

were in violation of Section 4 of the Karnataka

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of

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

1978'). The Assistant Commissioner pursuant to the

said application filed by the petitioner, had initiated

enquiry and contesting respondent had appeared before

the Assistant Commissioner. During the enquiry, the

petitioner had failed to produce any documents to show

that the land in question was granted to his father

Govindappa at any point of time. The petitioner had

neither produced the documents relating to grant nor

had produced any revenue records to show that at any

point of time the land in question stood in his father's

name. The Assistant Commissioner therefore dismissed

his application filed for restoration of the land in

question stating that absolutely there were no

documents to show that the land in question was

granted to the petitioner's father at any point of time.

The said order was questioned by the petitioner in an

appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, who had

confirmed the order passed by the Assistant

Commissioner and dismissed the appeal filed by the

petitioner under Section 5A of the Act, 1978. Being

aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this

writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued

that the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner

and Deputy Commissioner are illegal and cannot be

sustained in law. However, he des not dispute that the

petitioner had not produced any document before the

said authorities either to show that the land in question

was granted to his father - Govindappa at any point of

time or to show that the revenue entries in respect of

the lands in question stood in his father's name at any

point of time.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

contesting private respondents submits that the

authorities were justified in dismissing the restoration

application filed by the petitioner since he had failed to

produce any documents to show that the lands in

question were granted lands within the meaning of the

provisions of Sections 3(1)(b) of the Act, 1978. He

submits that though this Court in Writ Petition

No.207173/2014 had reserved liberty to the petitioner

to file necessary application for the purpose of obtaining

the documents relating to the grant, alienation etc., till

date petitioner has not made any such attempt. He

further submits that the material on record would go to

show that first sale of land in question is of the year

1966 and the application under the provisions of the Act

of 1978 was filed in the year 2015 and therefore there is

an inordinate delay in filing the application even after

the Act came into force in the year 1979. He submits

that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Vivek M.Hinduja and others vs.

M. Ashwatha and Others reported in (2020) 14

Supreme Court Cases 228 and in the case of

Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka

reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232, the authorities were

justified in dismissing the restoration application.

6. I have carefully appreciated the arguments

advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and

also perused the materials on record.

7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has

failed to produce any material before the competent

authorities to show that the land in question was

granted land within the meaning of Section 3(1)(b) of

the Act, 1978. The petitioner has not produced neither

documents relating to the grant nor any documents to

show that the revenue records of the land in question

stood in the name of his father at any point of time on

the strength of the grant order.

8. Further, the material on record would go to

show that the first sale in respect of the land in question

was in the year 1966. The Act of 1978 has come into

effect on 01.01.1979, the application was filed by the

petitioner for restoration of the land in question in the

year 2015, which was after a lapse of nearly 36 years.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Vivek

M.Hinduja (Supra) reported in (2020) 14 Supreme

Court Cases 228 and in the case of Nekkanti Rama

Lakshmi (Supra) reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232, has

held that the competent authority cannot entertain

applications filed for restoration of the lands under the

PTCL Act which was beyond a reasonable period. In the

case on hand, undisputedly the application has been

filed after 36 years from the date of the Act coming into

force. Therefore, considering the facts and

circumstances of this case, I do not find any merit in this

case. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

In view of the disposal of writ petition, IA 1/2022

does not survive for consideration.

Sd/-

JUDGE Srt/sn CT-SMP