Madiwalappa S/O Basappa Muragod vs Siddappa S/O Dhareppa Meeshi
2022 Latest Caselaw 5171 Kant

                                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                                   DHARWAD BENCH
                                        DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2022
                                                        BEFORE
                                  THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
                                        WRIT PETITION No.63416 OF 2011 (SC-ST)
                             BETWEEN:
                             1.   MADIWALAPPA S/O BASAPPA MURAGOD

                                  SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRs

                                  1a)    PARVATI W/O MADIWALAPPA MURAGOD,
                                         AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

                                  1b)    BHAVURAJ S/O MADIWALAPPA MURAGOD,
                                         AGE:53 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS,

                                  1c)    ARAVIND S/O MADIWALAPPA MURAGOD,
                                         AGE:50 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS,

                                  1d)    GEETA D/O MADIWALAPPA MURAGOD,
                                         AGE:48 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS,

                                  ALL ARE R/O NEAR MURAGOD PETROL PUMP,
                                  JAMAKHANDI, DIST:BAGALKOT.
          Digitally signed
          by J MAMATHA
J         Location:
MAMATHA   Dharwad
          Date:
          2022.03.26
                                                                              ...PETITIONERS
          12:16:24 +0530



                             (BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL FOR P1(a) to P1(d), ADVOCATE)

                             AND:

                             1.   SIDDAPPA S/O DHAREPPA MEESHI
                                  AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                                  R/O NEAR RUDRAVADHUT MATH,
                                  JAMAKHANDI, DIST:BAGALKOT.

                             2.   SIDDALINGAPPA S/O BASAPPA MURAGOD,
                                  AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                                  R/O NEAR MURAGOD PETROL PUMP,
                                  JAMAKHANDI, DIST.BAGALKOT.

                             3.    SMT.MAHADEVI W/O MALLIKARJUN MURAGOD
                                  AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
                                   -2-




                                              WP No. 63416 of 2011


     R/O NEAR MURAGOD PETROL PUMP,
     JAMAKHANDI, DIST:BAGALKOT.

4.   RAMESH S/O MALLIKARJUN MURAGOD,
     AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O NEAR MURAGOD PETROL PUMP,
     JAMAKHANDI, DIST:BAGALKOT.

5.   INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.
     REGD: OFF G-9, ALIYAVAR JUNG MARG,
     BANDRA (EAST) MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA STATE.
     REP. BY CHAIRMAN.

6.   ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
     JAMAKAHANDI DIVISION,
     JAMAKHANDI,DIST;BAGALKOT.

7.   DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     BAGALKOT DISTRICT,
     BAGALKOT.
                                                       ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. L.MARIYAPPA, ADV. FOR R1,
   SHRI V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R6 AND R7,
   SHRI C.V.ANGADI, ADV. FOR R5,
   NOTICE TO R2 TO R5 DISPENSED WITH)

     THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOT
DATED:19/05/2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-D CONFIRMING THE ORDER
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, JAMKHANDI IN PTCL/CR/5/2008-09
DATED:15/07/2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-C IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                                ORDER

In this writ petition, an order of resump tion

passed by the Assistant Commissioner under the

Karnataka Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe

WP No. 63416 of 2011

(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978

(for short 'PTCL Act'), which has also been confirmed

by the Deputy Commissioner, is called in question by

the purchaser.

2. The undisputed facts of the case are that by

an order dated 12.03.1965, vide Annexure-A, the

property in question i.e., CTS Nos.496, 497, 498 and

509 of Jamkhandi were ordered to be entered in the

name of the father of the 1 s t respondent.

3. On 27.03.1969, the petitioner purchased the

aforesaid property from the father of the 1st

respondent under a reg istered sale deed.

4. Forty years thereafter, in 2009, an

application was filed for assessment before the

Assistant Commissioner and the said application was

granted which has also been confirmed by the Deputy

Commissioner. Thus, it cannot be in dispute that the

application for resumption was made after 40 years

from the date of purchase.

WP No. 63416 of 2011

5. Shri Jagad ish Patil, learned counsel for the

petitioners contends that in the light of the judgment

rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in NEKKANTI

RAMA LAKSHMI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND

ANOTH ER reported in 2017 SCC ONLINE 1862 and

VIVEK M.HINDUJA AND OTHERS VS. M.ASHWATHA

AND OTHERS reported in 2017 SC ONLINE 1858,

which has also been followed by Division Benches of

this Court in P.KAMALA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA,

REVENUE DEPARTMENT reported in (2019 (5) KLJ

485) and in W.A.No.186/2021 decided on 31.03.2021

(Sri Srinivas Murthy since dead by his LRs Vs. the

State of Karnataka and others), the application for

resumption would have to be rejected in view of the

inordinate delay.

6. Shri L.Mariyappa, learned counsel appearing

for the 1 s t respondent however, contended that in view

of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in SATYAN VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND

OTH ERS reported in (AIR 2019 SC 2797), the

question of delay in seeking for resumption would be

WP No. 63416 of 2011

of no consequence. He has also relied upon a few

judgments which were prior to the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in NEKKANTI RAMA

LAKSHMI's case (supra) to contend that limitation in

seeking for resumption is not contemplated under the

Act.

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in NEKKANTI RAMA

LAKSHMI's case and VIVEK M.HINDUJA's case

(supra) has stated that the delay of 24 years and 16

years in seek ing for resumption after the coming into

force of the PTCL Act could not be considered and

resumption could not be granted on such a belated

request. In this case, admittedly, the application for

resumption was made nearly 29 years after the PTCL

Act was enacted. Thus, the ratio laid down in

NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI's case and VIVEK

M.HINDUJA's case (supra) will squarely apply.

8. The argument that the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in SATYAN's case (supra) has held that there is

no limitation for seeking for resumption, cannot be

WP No. 63416 of 2011

accep ted. Firstly because in the said case, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court was dealing with a case in which land

had been purchased after the PTCL Act had been

enacted and the allegation was that the alienation was

without prior permission as contemplated under

Section 4 (2) of the PTC L Act. Secondly because, the

Division Bench of this Court in P.KAMALA's case

(supra) has in fact considered the judgment in

SATYAN's case along with the other two judgments

rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and has held

that the delay in seeking for resump tion would

disentitle the grantee or the leg al heirs from claiming

resumption.

9. In view of the judgments rendered by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court and which have been followed

by Division Benches of this Court, the present writ

petition deserves to be allowed as the application for

resumption was made 29 years after the PTCL Act

came into force.

WP No. 63416 of 2011

10. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

i) Writ petition is allowed,

ii) Both Annexures C and D shall stand quashed .

(Sd/-) JUDGE

JM