Karnataka High Court
Gopala vs The Deputy Commissioner on 22 October, 2024
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:42296-DB
WA No. 1153 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1153 OF 2023 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
GOPALA
S/O LATE RANGASWAMY
AGED 59 YEARS
R/AT BYLUKUPPE GRAMA
HARANAHALLI HOBLI
PERIYAPATNA TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT-571 187
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. T.A. KARUMBAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
Digitally signed by MYSORE DISTRICT
SHAKAMBARI
MYSORE-577 187
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HUNSUR DIVISION, HUNSUR
MYSORE DISTRICT-573 119
3. SERA MEY DRATSANG
CULTURAL SOCIETY (R)
BYLAKUPPE GRAMA
HARANAHALLI HOBLI
PERIYAPATNA TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:42296-DB
WA No. 1153 of 2023
BY ITS SECRETARY
NGWANG LEGDEN
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. B.M. AKSHAYA, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
19/06/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP
NO.56793/2014 AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
The appellant-respondent No.3 before the learned
Single Judge is before this Court, being aggrieved by order
dated 19.06.2023 in W.P.No.56793/2014, whereby the
writ petition filed by respondent No.3 herein is allowed and
order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated
12.08.2013 and order dated 25.11.2014 passed by the
first respondent- Appellate Authority under Section 5 of
Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
NC: 2024:KHC:42296-DB
(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for
short PTCL Act) is set aside.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of present writ
appeal are that:
The appellant is great grand son of original grantee
Venkatappa in respect of land bearing Sy.No.50 of
Bylakuppe Village of Periyapatna Taluk, Mysore District to
an extent of 6.00 acres 08 guntas granted under grant
orders dated 31.12.1953 and 20.08.1956 respectively. In
respect of the said land, the son and his grandson of
original grantee effected sale in respect of 2.00 acres
05 guntas under sale deed dated 19.05.1972 and in
respect of 3.00 acres under sale deed dated 01.09.1972.
Thereafter, great grandson of original grantee Venkatappa
initiated proceedings under Section 5 of the PTCL Act in
the year 2001 under proceedings No.17/2000-2001. The
application of the petitioner was rejected by order dated
29.01.2005 against which, Appeal No.6/2006-07 was filed
which was allowed by order dated 28.03.2006 and the
NC: 2024:KHC:42296-DB
matter was remanded to Assistant Commissioner for fresh
consideration after issuing notice to the concerned parties.
After remand, the Assistant Commissioner by order dated
12.08.2013 allowed restoration Application of the
appellant and restored the land in favour of the appellant.
Against the said order, the 3rd respondent herein filed
Appeal No.9/2013-14 and the said appeal filed before the
Deputy Commissioner was dismissed by order dated
25.11.2014. Respondent No.3, challenging the order of
the Assistant Commissioner dated 12.08.2013 and the
order of Deputy Commissioner dated 25.11.2014 filed
W.P.No.56793/2014 before this Court. Learned Single
Judge after hearing both the parties, under impugned
order dated 09.06.2023 allowed the writ petition setting
aside the order of Assistant Commissioner dated
12.08.2013 as well as the appellate order passed by
Deputy Commissioner dated 25.11.2014, insofar as
respondent No.3's property is concerned. Aggrieved by
the order of the learned Single Judge, appellant-3rd
respondent is before this Court in this writ appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:42296-DB
3. Heard learned counsel Sri.Karumbaiah.T.A. for
appellant, learned counsel Sri.Akshaya B.M. for
respondent No.3 and Smt.B.Sukanya Baliga, learned
Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1
and 2. Perused the writ appeal papers.
4. Learned counsel Sri.Karumbaiah would submit
that the impugned order passed by the learned Single
Judge is contrary to the material on record and further, he
submits that the learned Single Judge without going to the
merits of the case only on the ground of delay, dismissed
the writ petition. Learned counsel would submit that the
land in question is a granted land and the appellant before
the appellate Court belongs to Scheduled Caste. The
appellant is great grandson of the original grantee and the
sale had taken place without the permission as required
under law.
5. Further, learned counsel would submit that at
the first instance, the order passed by the Assistant
Commissioner was set aside by the Deputy Commissioner
NC: 2024:KHC:42296-DB
and directed the Assistant Commissioner to examine the
case of the appellant on merit. On examination and after
enquiry, the Assistant Commissioner rightly came to the
conclusion that it is a granted land and sale has taken
place in violation of the provisions of PTCL Act and has
rightly restored the land in favour of the appellant.
6. Learned counsel would submit that there is no
delay as observed by the learned Single Judge. When
both the authorities i.e., Assistant Commissioner and
Deputy Commissioner have concurrently held that the sale
transactions are null and void and when there is a finding
of fact, this Court could not have entertained the writ
petition. Hence, the learned counsel sought for allowing
the appeal.
7. Per contra, learned counsel Sri Akshaya B.M.,
appearing for respondent No.3 would submit that the land
in question is not a granted land. The land was granted to
the petitioner under the Grow More Food Scheme and
when the land is granted under Grow More Food Scheme,
NC: 2024:KHC:42296-DB
it would not be a granted land and the provisions of PTCL
Act would no more applies. Further, learned counsel
would submit that the alienations have taken place during
the year 1972 and the proceedings for restoration under
Section 5 of the PTCL Act is initiated in the year 2001 and
there is delay of more than 29 years. Thus, learned Single
Judge rightly dismissed the petition solely on the ground
of delay and latches.
8. Learned counsel would submit that the
Assistant Commissioner under order dated 12.08.2013 has
rightly observed that the grant in respect of the lands in
question to the great grandfather of the appellant is for an
upset price which is paid by the grantee. Thus, learned
counsel would pray for dismissal of the writ appeal.
9. Having heard the learned counsels for the
parties and on perusal of the writ appeal papers, we are of
the considered view that no ground is made out to
interfere with the order passed by the learned Single
NC: 2024:KHC:42296-DB
Judge and we do not find any error in the order passed by
the learned Single Judge.
10. Admittedly, the grant in favour of great
grandfather of the appellant was in the year 1953 and
1958 respectively in Sy.No.50 of Bylakuppe Village and
the alienation in respect of the said lands has taken place
under sale deeds dated 20.04.1972 and 01.10.1972
respectively. Proceedings under Section 5 of the PTCL Act
has been initiated by the appellant in the year 2001 that is
nearly after 29 years from the date of alienation.
Therefore, the learned Single Judge is right in observing
that there is gross delay of 29 years in initiating action
and the Assistant Commissioner was not justified in
entertaining the application. There is no explanation
whatsoever assigned to condone the inordinate delay and
latches in initiating the proceedings.
11. The learned Single Judge has rightly referred to
the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi Vs. State of Karnataka and
NC: 2024:KHC:42296-DB
another and Vivek M.Hinduja Vs. M.Aswatha reported
in (2020) 14 SCC 232 as well as (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC.
The Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated that if the
proceedings under the PTCL Act is not initiated within
reasonable time, the authorities would not get jurisdiction
to entertain the proceedings. Thus, we do not find any
error in the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge
that there is inordinate delay in initiating the proceedings.
12. The learned counsel for respondent No.3
contended that the land in question is granted to the great
grandfather of the appellant under the Grow More Food
Scheme and invited attention of this Court to Annexure-
'B'/Form No.1 and submits that the land was granted to
the great grandfather of the appellant for upset price of
Rs.50/- and the same is paid by the grantee. A perusal of
Annexure-'B'/Form No.1 - Grant Certificate issued to
original grantee it is seen that the land was auctioned in
the public auction in favour of the the grantee for upset
price of Rs.50/- which was paid by the grantee on
31.12.1953.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42296-DB
13. A reading of the order of the Assistant
Commissioner dated 12.08.2013 indicates that the land in
question was granted to the original grantee under Grow
More Food Scheme and also the payment of upset
price/kimmat by the original grantee. In view of the
above, there is no merit in the writ appeal. Accordingly,
the writ appeal stands rejected.
14. As observed by the learned Single Judge at
paragraph No.8 of the order, this order is in respect of
property bearing No.24/2 assessment No.38 measuring
262 + 1032 x 102 + 21
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
PSJ
