Karnataka High Court

Smt Lakshmamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 July, 2024

                                               -1-
                                                           NC: 2024:KHC:25195-DB
                                                            WA No. 1627 of 2023




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                              DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2024

                                            PRESENT

                          THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE

                                              AND

                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

                              WRIT APPEAL No. 1627 OF 2023 (SC-ST)

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,
                        W/O LATE RAMACHANDRAIAH,
                        AGED ABOUT 76 YEAS,
                        R/AT BANGARAPPA COLONY,
                        PARVATHIPURA,
                        HEBBUR VILLAGE,
                        HEBBUR HOBLI,
                        TUMAKURU TALUK,
                        TUMAKURU 572130.
                                                                    ...APPELLANT

Digitally signed   (BY SRI KUMARASWAMY H. C., ADVOCATE)
by VALLI
MARIMUTHU          AND:
Location: High
Court of           1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Karnataka
                        REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
                        REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
                        M.S. BUILDING,
                        BENGALURU 560001.

                   2.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
                        TUMAKURU DISTRICT,
                        TUMAKURU 572101.

                   3.   THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
                        TUMAKURU SUB DIVISION,
                        TUMAKURU 572101.
                                -2-
                                        NC: 2024:KHC:25195-DB
                                         WA No. 1627 of 2023




4.   THE TAHASILDAR,
     TUMAKURU TALUK,
     TUMAKURU 572101.

5.   Y. VENKATESH,
     S/O LATE YALAKAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
     R/AT KAMBLAPURA,
     HEBBUR HOBLI,
     TUMAKURU TALUK 571120.
                                              ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED IN WP No.24900/2022
DATED 29.08.2023 AND DIRECT THE COURT TO DISPOSE OF THE
CASE ON MERITS IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

     THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:


     CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
               N. V. ANJARIA
               and
               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

                      ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)

Heard learned advocate Sri. H.C. Kumaraswamy for the

appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer

Akbar for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

NC: 2024:KHC:25195-DB

2. This appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act,

1961 impugning the order of learned Single Judge in Writ Petition

No.24900 of 2022 dated 29.08.2023.

3. The lands bearing Sy.No.91/1 measuring 2 acres 26 guntas,

Sy.No.92/2 measuring 2 acres 30 guntas and Sy.No.93 measuring

4 acre 37 guntas were originally granted in favour of Thimmaiah

S/o Venkataiah and Venkataiah S/o Venkataiah under Depressed

Class Rules. The said granted lands were sold by the original

grantee in favour of Mavanallaiah, Gangaiah S/o Chikkarangaiah

and Gangaiah S/o Byataiah, in violation of the grant order. The

son of original grantee filed an application under Section 5 of the

Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of

Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [hereinafter referred to as

'PTCL Act' for short] before respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 by

order dated 31.08.1981 restored the lands in favour of the original

grantee. The order of restoration was confirmed by respondent

No.2-Deputy Commissioner. The orders of respondent Nos.2 and

3 were challenged in Writ Petitions No.13798 of 1992, 13799 of

1992 and 13800 of 1992. The writ petitions came to be dismissed

by order dated 30.09.1993.

NC: 2024:KHC:25195-DB

4. The lands were restored to the original grantee. The

petitioner purchased the said lands from the legal heirs of original

grantee namely, Ramachandraiah, H. V Gopalaiah, H.V. Nagaraj

and H.V. Krishnappa under registered sale deed dated 09.02.1994

with due permission from the Government. The legal

representatives filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL

Act. Respondent No.3 by order dated 23.06.2008 rejected the

application. In appeal, respondent No.2 confirmed the order and

dismissed the appeal by order dated 01.12.2014. The order dated

23.06.2008 by respondent No.3 rejecting the application under

Section 5 of the PTCL Act has reached finality.

5. The appellant filed an application under Section 5 of the

PTCL Act before respondent No.3 in the year 2020-21.

Respondent No.3 allowed the application by order dated

14.10.2022. The said order was the subject matter of writ in the

impugned judgment at the instance of purchaser.

6. Learned Single Judge by considering that one of the original

grantees filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act in the

year 2006 before respondent No.3, which was dismissed by order

dated 23.06.2008, against which, further appeal was filed before

NC: 2024:KHC:25195-DB

respondent No.2 in PTCL No.13/2008-09 and the said appeal

came to be dismissed by order dated 01.12.2014, held similar

petition on the same ground filed by the original writ petitioner is

not maintainable.

7. Learned Single Judge held that the second application on

similar set of facts and grounds after lapse of 19 years is not

maintainable when the first application under Section 5 of the PTCL

Act was rejected by order dated 27.08.1992. Learned Single

Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of

respondent No.3 dated 14.10.2022, wherein the application under

Section 5 of PTCL Act was allowed.

8. Learned advocate for the appellant submits that any person

aggrieved by an order can prefer an application under Section 5 of

the PTCL Act. It is contended that as the lands were re-granted in

favour of the appellant, the application for restoration is

maintainable. It is further contended that as the earlier application

was not by the present appellant, the order of rejection is not

binding.

9. Heard learned advocate for the parties and perused the

appeal papers.

NC: 2024:KHC:25195-DB

10. The lands in question were allotted at the earliest point of

time. The said lands were subjected to petition under Section 5 of

the PTCL Act. At the instance of the original grantee, the order of

restoration was passed. The said orders of restoration were

confirmed in Writ Petitions No.13798 of 1992, 13799 of 1992 and

13800 of 1992 dated 30.09.1993.

11. The restored lands were re-granted. The

petitioner/respondent No.5 purchased such lands under registered

Sale Deed dated 09.02.1994 with permission of the Government.

The said sale was subjected to application under Section 5 of the

PTCL Act. Respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner by order

dated 23.06.2008 rejected the application. The said order of

rejection came to be confirmed by respondent No.2-Deputy

Commissioner. Thus, the order passed by the Assistant

Commissioner dated 23.06.2008 has attained finality.

12. The appellant w/o of Ramachandraiah, one of the legal

representatives of the original grantee, filed an application under

Section 5 of the PTCL Act.

NC: 2024:KHC:25195-DB

13. The original grant, sale and restoration prior to re-grant are

not relevant at present and not adverted to in detail. After the

restoration and re-grant of lands, subject lands have been sold

under registered sale deed with permission of the Government.

The said sale transaction was subjected to application under

Section 5 of the PTCL Act which came to be rejected on

23.06.2008 and confirmed by order dated 01.02.2014. The

application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act can be maintained by

any interested person. Merely because the earlier application

rejected in the year 2008 was not at the instance of respondent

No.5 and rejection of the same will not preclude the appellant filing

another application is not sustainable. The language of Section of

5 of the PTCL Act cannot be read to mean that every person

interested in the property can prefer independent/multiple

applications when an order of rejection under the said section in

respect of the same transaction/land is unchallenged.

14. Learned Single Judge by referring to the decision of Division

Bench in the case of Sri Narayanaswamy vs. The District

Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District in Writ Appeal

No.3855 of 2019, has held that once the proceedings under

NC: 2024:KHC:25195-DB

Sections 4 and 5 of the Act of 1978 are filed/initiated and the same

are either withdrawn or dismissed on merits, a fresh

petition/second petition on the same cause of action and the same

subject matter, is not maintainable and the same is liable to be

dismissed on this ground alone. The second petition is clearly

barred by the principles of estoppel, acquiescence, abandonment

and waiver.

15. It is relevant to note the law laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court is applicable to the fact situation in Daryao and

others vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others [AIR 1961 SC

1457], the same reads as under,

"it is in the interest of the public at large that a finality should attach to the binding decisions produced by Courts' of competent jurisdiction, and it is also in the public interest that individuals should not be vexed twice over with the same kind of litigation. The binding character of judgments pronounced by the Courts of competent jurisdiction is itself an essential part of the rule of law, and the rule of law obviously is the basis of the administration of justice on which the Constitution lays so much empahasis."

16. The learned Single Judge is justified in holding that second

petition/application on the same cause of action is not maintainable

when already the petition/application under the same provision and

in respect of the same property is rejected. In the fact situation,

NC: 2024:KHC:25195-DB

this Court concurs with the view of learned Single Judge that

second petition/application is clearly barred by principles of

estoppel, acquiescence, abandonment and waiver.

17. No ground is made out to interfere with the order of learned

Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.

In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and they stand disposed of.

Sd/-