Sri K T Manjunath vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 5175 Kant

                              1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                       PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                          AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

             WRIT APPEAL NO.485/2021

BETWEEN:

1.     SRI K.T.MANJUNATH
       S/O K.N.THIPPAIAH,
       AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

2.     SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
       W/O SHANKARANARAYANAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

3.     SRI R.N.MANJUNATHA
       S/O N.NARASIMHAREDDY,
       AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

4.     SRI G.N.PRABHAKARA
       S/O D.V.NARAYANASHETTY,
       AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

5.     SRI N.A.SUDHAKAR
       S/O N.A.ANANTHA,
       AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

6.     SRI C.H.SUNIL KUMAR
       S/O C.H.RADHAKRISHNAIAH,
       AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

       APPELLANTS ARE R/AT
       KARNATAKA ENTERPRISES,
       B.H.ROAD, GOWRIBIDANUR TOWN.
       CHIKKABALLAPUR-562101.         ... APPELLANTS
                             2

(BY SOMASHEKHARAIAH.R.P., ADV.)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY ITS SECRETARY,
       REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
       M.S.BUILDING,
       BENGALURU 560001.

2.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
       CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT,
       CHIKKABALLAPUR-562101.

3.     THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
       CHIKKABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION,
       CHIKKABALLAPUR,
       CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DIST.-562101.

4.     SMT. SAVITHRAMMA
       W/O.LATE. R. SEETHAPATHI,

5.     SRI. R. JAGANNATH
       S/O. LATE. RANGASWAMY,

6.     SMT. GEETHAMMA
       W/O. R. SHIVAPPA,

7.     SMT. RATHNAMMA
       W/O. LATE R. DAYANANDA,

       RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 7 ARE MAJOR
       R/AT HOSAPETE,
       GOWRIBIDANUR TOWN,
       CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK,
       CHIKKABALLAPUR DIST.562101. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. VANI.H., AGA, FOR R1 TO R3;
     SRI, T.YUGANDHAR, ADV. FOR R4 TO R7)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN
W.P.NO.6515/2019 (SC/ST) DATED 12.03.2021.
                                 3

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                     JUDGMENT

This intra-court appeal has been filed challenging the

order dated 12th March 2021 passed by the learned Single

Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.6515/2019 (SC/ST).

2. The parties are referred to by their rankings

assigned to them in the writ petition.

3. Brief facts of the case that would be relevant for

the purpose of disposal of this appeal are:

The land bearing Sy.No.119, new No.304 measuring

1 acre 18 guntas situated at Madanahalli Village,

Gowribidanur, Kolar District (for short "the land in

question") was granted in favour of one M.Rangaswamy

on 24.04.1964 and the said Rangaswamy sold the granted

land in favour of one K.V.Krishnappa on 17.09.1968.

Subsequently, said K.V.Krishnappa got the land converted

from agricultural purpose to non-agricultural purpose on

26.06.1991 and after his death, the wife and children of

K.V.Krishnappa under a registered sale deed dated

12.06.1996 sold the land in question in favour of the

petitioners.

4. When the matter stood thus, the son of the

original grantee R.Dayananda filed an application under

Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands)

Act, 1978 (for short "PTCL Act") in the year 2004 for

restoration of the land in question on the ground that the

transaction was hit by Section 4 of the PTCL Act and

accordingly sought restoration of the land in question.

The Assistant Commissioner vide his order dated

04.07.2005 allowed the said application and the same was

confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner in the appeal filed

by the petitioners vide his order dated 07.05.2014. Being

aggrieved by the same, the petitioners, who are the

purchasers of the land in question from K.V.Krishnappa,

filed W.P.No.6515/2019 before this court and the learned

Single Judge of this court vide the order impugned herein

has dismissed the same and being aggrieved by the same,

the petitioners are in appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

the application filed for restoration in the year 2004 ought

not have been entertained by the competent authorities as

the same was filed beyond reasonable period. He also

submits that having regard to the judgments of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama

Lakshmi -vs- State of Karnataka & Another reported

in (2020)14 SCC 232 and in the case of Vivek

M.Hinduja -vs- M.Aswatha reported in (2019)1 Kant

LJ 819 SC, the learned Single Judge of this court ought to

have allowed the writ petition. He submits that, compared

to the delay of 25 years in filing the application under

Section 5 of the PTCL Act for restoration of the land in

question, the delay of four years in filing the writ petition

is very meager and therefore, the learned Single Judge

was not justified in dismissing the writ petition on the

ground of delay and laches.

6. The respondents have argued in support of the

impugned order and have prayed to dismiss the appeal.

7. We have given our anxious consideration to the

arguments addressed on both sides and also perused the

material available on record.

8. The undisputed facts of the case are that the land

in question was granted to M.Rangaswamy on 24.04.1964

and during his life time, he had sold the same in favour of

K.V.Krishnappa on 17.09.1968. Subsequently,

K.V.Krishnappa got the land in question converted from

agricultural purpose to non-agricultural purpose on

26.06.1991 and after his death, his wife and children sold

the land in favour of the petitioners herein. The

application for restoration has been filed by the son of

original grantee in the year 2004, which was almost after

25 years from the date the PTCL Act came into force. The

PTCL Act has come into force with effect from 01.01.1979.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra) and in the case of

Vivek M.Hinduja (supra), has held that any act and

action for restoration of the land as provided under

Section 5 of the PTCL Act is required to be taken within a

reasonable period and if the application filed under Section

5 of the PTCL Act is beyond reasonable period, the

competent authorities should not entertain the same. In

the case of Ningappa -vs- Deputy Commissioner and

Others reported in (2020) 14 SCC 236, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held that an application filed under

Section 5 of the PTCL Act with a delay of 9 years was

beyond the reasonable period. In the case on hand,

admittedly, the delay is more than 25 years.

10. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for

the petitioners, the delay caused in filing the writ petition

is of 4 years and compared to the delay caused in filing

the application for restoration, the same is negligible and

therefore, in our considered view, the learned Single

Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition on

the ground of delay and laches.

11. The petitioners have offered an explanation to

the delay of 4 years caused in filing the writ petition and

they have stated that after disposal of the appeal by the

Deputy Commissioner, they did not have any intimation

about the same from the office of the Deputy

Commissioner and it is only after coming to know about

the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, they had

taken action to file the writ petition. Whereas, the son of

the original grantee, who had filed an application under

Section 5 of the PTCL Act seeking restoration of the land in

question, had not offered any explanation for the

inordinate delay of 25 years caused in filing the said

application.

12. In the background of the pronouncements of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, which are referred to

hereinabove, the application filed by the legal

representative of the original grantee under Section 5 of

the PTCL Act, was definitely beyond a reasonable period

and the authorities concerned should not have entertained

the said application filed after a delay of 25 years. The

learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate this aspect of

the matter and erred in dismissing the writ petition filed

by the petitioners on the ground of delay and laches.

13. Under the circumstances, we are of the

considered view that the impugned order passed by the

learned Single Judge of this Court is unsustainable.

Accordingly, the following order:

The writ appeal is allowed. The order dated 12th

March 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this

Court in Writ Petition No.6515/2019 (SC/ST) is set aside.

Consequently, W.P.No.6515/2019 is allowed and the order

dated 04.07.2005 passed by the Assistant Commissioner

and the order dated 07.05.2014 passed by the Deputy

Commissioner are quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

KNM/-