Karnataka High Court
Shri Papanna vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 March, 2022
Bench: Alok Aradhe, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A.No.1054/2021
BETWEEN:
SHRI PAPANNA
S/O. SADAPPA,
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS,
1. VENKATAMMA
W/O LATE PAPANNA,
AGE: MAJOR, 70
2. MUNIYAPPA
S/O. LATE. PAPANNA,
AGE: MAJOR, 55
3. RAMAKKA
D/O. LATE. PAPANNA,
AGE: MAJOR, 39
4. MALLAMMA
W/O. LATE. PAPANNA,
AGE: MAJOR, 60
5. MANKALAPPA
S/O. LATE. PAPANNA,
AGE: MAJOR, 41
6. SHASHIKALA
D/O. LATE. PAPANNA,
AGE: MAJOR, 38
2
APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 6 ARE
R/O.BANDAPURA VILLAGE,
MARASURA POST,
KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGLAURU DISTRICT - 562106. ... APPELLANTS
(By Sri Chava Hanumanth Rao, Adv. for
Sri Vishwanath H.M., Adv.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGLAURU 560001.
2. THE TAHSILDAR,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT -562106.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION,
BENGALURU - 560001.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU DISTRICT,
BENGALURU - 560001.
5. SRI JAYARAM REDDY
S/O. LATE. SIDDA REDDY,
AGE 62 YEARS,
6. SRI NARAYANA REDDY
S/O. LATE. T VENKATASWAMY REDDY,
AGE 66 YEARS ,
7. SRI MUNIREDDY
S/O. LATE. VENKATASWAMY REDDY,
AGE 69 YEARS,
8. SRI THIMMA REDDY
S/O. LATE. T VENKATASWAMY REDDY,
AGE 66 YEARS ,
3
RESPONDENTS 5 TO 8 ARE
R/O. BANDAPURA VILLAGE,
MARASURA POST, KASABA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TLAUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562106. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri Aravind M. Negalur, Adv. for C/R.5;
Smt. Vani.H., AGA for R1 to R4)
This writ appeal is filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the order
dated 09.08.2021 passed by the Learned Single Judge in WP
No.34038/2018 (SC-ST).
This appeal coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day,
Vishwajith Shetty J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
1. The instant writ appeal is filed by the legal
representatives of the original grantee challenging the order
dated 09.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.34038/2018.
2. The parties are referred to by the rank assigned to
them in the writ petition.
3. Facts of the case as revealed from the records are, the
land bearing Sy. No.217 measuring 2 acres situated at
Madivala village, Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk, was granted to
late Sadappa in the year 1959. Sadappa sold one acre of land
in Sy. No.217 under a registered sale deed dated 08.09.1960
and a further extent of 19 guntas under a registered sale
deed dated 31.12.1962 in favour of one Sidda Reddy who is
the father of the petitioners herein. Under a registered sale
deed dated 31.12.1962, the original grantee also sold 14
guntas of land in Sy. No.217 in favour of one Venkataswamy
Reddy.
4. Respondents claiming to be the legal representatives of
the original grantee had filed an application for restoration of
the aforesaid land under Section 5-A of the Karnataka
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of
Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'PTCL Act'),
on the ground that the alienations were hit by Section 4 of
the PTCL Act.
5. The Assistant Commissioner ordered for restoration of
the land in dispute in favour of the legal representatives of
the original grantee and the said order was confirmed by the
Deputy Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the
petitioners herein had filed W.P.No.34038/2018 which was
allowed by this Court vide order dated 09.08.2021 and the
order dated 06.06.2018 and 06.12.2013 passed by the
Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner,
respectively, were quashed. It is under these circumstances,
the legal representatives of the original grantee are in appeal.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the
sale has taken place within the prohibited period, and
therefore, the same is hit by Section 4 of the PTCL Act. He
submits that the PTCL Act is a Special Enactment, and
therefore, the said Act has got a overriding effect over the
provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. He also submits
that since the sale is hit by Section 4 of the PTCL Act, mere
delay in filing the restoration application will not come in the
way of the legal representatives of the original grantee being
granted any relief under the provisions of the PTCL Act as the
said Act is a beneficial legislation.
7. We have carefully considered the arguments addressed
by the learned Counsel for the appellants and also perused
the material available on record.
8. The undisputed facts of the case are, that the land in
dispute have been sold to the father of the petitioners under
two sale deeds dated 08.09.1960 and 31.12.1962,
respectively. Though the PTCL Act has come into force with
effect from 01.01.1979 itself, the application for restoration
under Section 5-A of the PTCL Act, has been filed by the legal
representatives of the original grantee only in the year 2006-
07.
9. The learned Single Judge taking into consideration that
there was a delay of nearly 27 years in filing the application
for restoration by the legal representatives of the original
grantee, in the background of the judgments rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA
LAKSHMI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER - (2020)14
SCC 232 and VIVEK M.HINDUJA VS M.ASWATHA - (2019)1
Kant LJ 819 SC, has held that since the application for
restoration has not been filed within a reasonable period, the
application itself was not maintainable, and accordingly, has
set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner
dated 06.12.2013 and the order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner dated 06.06.2018.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases has
held that action for restoration whether on an application of
the parties or suo motu must be taken within a reasonable
time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NINGAPPA
VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & OTHERS - (2020)14 SCC 236,
has declined to entertain the application for restoration which
was submitted after nine years. In the present case, the
application for restoration has been filed after 27 years of the
PTCL Act coming into force. Therefore, the learned Single
Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition holding that
the application for restoration was not filed within a
reasonable time.
11. The contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the
appellants that the PTCL Act is a Special Enactment and the
same has got a overriding effect over the provisions of the
Transfer of Property Act and the judgments relied upon by
him in support of this contention of his, has been considered
by the learned Single Judge and he has rightly held that the
judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Under these circumstances, we do not find any irregularity or
illegality in the orders passed by the learned Single Judge
which calls for interference. Accordingly, we decline to
entertain this writ appeal and the same is, therefore,
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KK
