Karnataka High Court
Smt. Kempamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 February, 2023
Bench: Alok Aradhe, S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
WA No. 366 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT APPEAL NO.366 OF 2021 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. KEMPAMMA
W/O LATE VENKATAGIRIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
2. SRI MUNEGOWDA
S/O LATE VENKATA GIRIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
3. SRI GIRISH
S/O LATE VENKATA GIRIYAPPA
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
by B A KRISHNA
KUMAR
Location: High
Court of
4. SMT. GEETHA
Karnataka D/O LATE VENKATA GIRIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
5. SMT. KAMAKSHI
W/O KANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
6. SRI BYATAPPA
S/O SRI KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.
ALL THE APPELLANTTS ARE
RESIDING AT MUGABALA
HOSAHALLI VILLAGE
JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI
HOSKOTE TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL
DISTRICT - 561 203.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI V. LAKSHMINARAYANA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI SHAIK ISMAIL ZABIULLA, ADV.)
-2-
WA No. 366 of 2021
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION
BANGLAORE - 560 001.
4. SMT. ROOPA
D/O NAGARAJ
AGED ABPIT 30 YEARS
RESIDING AT KURUBARAPET
HOSKOTE TOWN, HOSKOTE TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL
DISTRICT - 561 203.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMST. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3;
R-4 SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06/03/2021
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.55492/2017
(SC-ST) ON THE FILE OF HON BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT
BANGALORE AS PRAYED FOR.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
WA No. 366 of 2021
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal has been filed assailing the order
dated 06.03.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.55492/2017.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
also perused the material available on records.
3. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the records
that may be necessary for the purpose of disposal of this
appeal are that, the land bearing survey No.1 (56/P8)
measuring 4 acres of Mugabala Hosahalli Village, Jadigenahalli
Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District was granted in
favour of Sri Basappa on 04.03.1956 and the said Basappa sold
the granted land in favour of Kenchappa under a registered sale
deed dated 29.09.1957. The legal representatives of original
grantee had filed an application before the Assistant
Commissioner in the year 2003 under Section 5 of Karnataka
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer
of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the
'PTCL Act' for short) contending that the sale made by original
grantee in favour of Kenchappa was hit by Section 4 of the Act.
Accordingly, the applicant had prayed to restore the land which
WA No. 366 of 2021
was the subject matter of the sale deed dated 29.09.1957, in
favour of legal representatives of original grantee. The said
application was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on the
ground that the applicant had not produced copy of grant
certificate and also had not produced any document to show
that they belonged to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe.
The said order was upheld by the Deputy Commissioner in an
appeal filed by the applicant. As against the said order,
applicant had preferred W.P.No.55492/2017 before this Court.
The learned Single Judge of this Court vide the impugned order
dated 06.03.2021 has allowed the writ petition and having
quashed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and
Deputy Commissioner has remitted the matter to the Assistant
Commissioner for fresh consideration of the application filed by
the legal representative of original grantee under Section 5 of
the PTCL Act for restoration of land in question. Being
aggrieved by the said order the appellants who are the legal
representatives of Kenchappa have preferred this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
there was inordinate delay in filing the application under
Section 5 of the PTCL Act. He submits that the sale was on
WA No. 366 of 2021
20.09.1957 and the PTCL Act had came into force with effect
from 01.01.1979, whereas the application under Section 5 of
the PTCL Act was made only in the year 2003. He submits that
there is delay of 24 years in filing the application and therefore,
the learned Single Judge was not justified in setting aside the
order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy
Commissioner and remanding the matter for fresh
consideration. He also submits that the Assistant Commissioner
as well as Deputy Commissioner have rightly dismissed the
application filed by the legal representative of original grantee
since the copy of the grant certificate was not produced by
them before the authorities. The applicant had also not
produced any document to show that original grantee belonged
to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe and therefore in the
absence of said documents, the authorities were justified in
rejecting the application. Accordingly, he prays to allow the
appeal.
5. The respondent though served in the matter
remained absent. Learned Additional Government Advocate for
respondent Nos.1 to 3 has argued in support of the impugned
order and has prayed to dismiss the appeal.
WA No. 366 of 2021
6. Undisputed facts of the case are the grant was
made in favour of the original grantee Sri Basappa on
04.03.1956. The said Basappa had sold the property in
question to one Kenchappa under the registered sale deed
dated 20.09.1957. After the death of Basappa, his legal
representative had filed an application before the Assistant
Commissioner under Section 5 of the PTCL Act in the year
2003. The PTCL Act had came into force with effect from
01.01.1979. The application seeking restoration of land was
filed in the year 2003, which is after a lapse of nearly 24 years.
7. This Court taking into consideration the judgment of
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 AND OTHERS VS. M.
ASHWATHA AND OTHERS - 2018(1) KAR. L.R. 176 (SC) has
consistently held that any action either on the application of the
grantee or the legal representatives of the grantee or suo motu
for restoration of the lands in favour of the grantee or his legal
representatives is required to be made within a reasonable
period. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NINGAPPA
VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & OTHERS - (2020)14 SCC 236
WA No. 366 of 2021
has held that an application filed after a delay of nine years for
restoration under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was beyond
reasonable period.
8. In the present case, application has been filed after
lapse of 24 years. The learned Single Judge was therefore not
justified in remanding the matter to the Assistant
Commissioner for fresh consideration of the application filed
under Section 5 of the PTCL Act which has been filed belatedly
after a lapse of 24 years from the PTCL Act coming into force.
Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot
be sustained. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:-
::ORDER::
The writ appeal is allowed.
The order dated 06.03.2021 passed by
the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.No.55492/2017 is set-aside.
SD/-
JUDGE
SD/-
JUDGE
NMS
