Karnataka High Court
Shrikanth Gouda S/O. G. Doddana Gouda vs The Deputy Commissioner on 21 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254
WP No. 83444 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA
WRIT PETITION NO. 83444 OF 2013 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
SHRIKANTH GOUDA
S/O. G. DODDANA GOUDA
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.
1A. SMT. NIRMALA
W/O. SRIKANTHA GOUDA
AGE: 44 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
1B. SHIVALEELA GUTTIGANOOR,
AGE:24 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
Digitally
signed by V
N BADIGER 1C. G. MANJUNATH
Location: S/O. G. SRIKANTHA GOUDA
HIGH
COURT OF AGE: 22 YEARS,
KARNATAKA, OCC: STUDENT,
DHARWAD
BENCH,
DHARWAD
1D. G. PURNIMA
D/O. G. SRIKANTHA GOUDA,
AGE: 20 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
1D. G. PREETI
D/O. G. SRIKANTHA GOUDA,
AGE: 18 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254
WP No. 83444 of 2013
ALL ARE R/O. NO.14
MANNUR SUGUR- 583120.
TQ: SIRAGUPPA,
DIST: BALLARI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BELLARY,
D.C COMPOUND,
BELLARY.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BELLARY,
DIST: BELLARY.
3. PAPANNA URF SANNA RAMAPPA
S/O. HARIJAN MALLAPPA,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. M. SUGUR VILLAGE,
SIRGUPPA TALUK,
DIST: BELLARY.
SRI. BASAPPASHETTY
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
4. SMT. A VENKAMMA
D/O. BASAPPASHETTY
W/O. IRAYYAVSHETTY
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
5. SRI. MAHANTAPPA
S/O. BHARMANNA
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254
WP No. 83444 of 2013
6. VIJAYARAMAKRISHNA RAJU
S/O. BHEEMARAJU
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
RESPONDENT NO.4 TO 6 ARE
R/O. M.SUGUR VILLAGE,
SIRGUPPA TALUK
DIST: BELLARY.
7. THE MANAGER,
T.G.B BANK,
MUDDATTANUR VILLAGE,
SIRGUPPA TALUK,
DIST: BELLARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R1 & R2;
SMT. V. VIDYA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K. RAGHAVENDRA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3;
SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R6;
NOTICE TO R4, R5, AND R7 IS SERVED)
-------
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT QUASHING THE
ORDER DATED 18/09/2013 IN P.T.C.L./APPEAL/46/2008-09
PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT CONFIRMING THE ORDER
DATED 28.06.2008 IN APPLICATION NO. PTCL/21/2004-05
PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, PRODUCED AS PER
ANNEXURE - A AND B RESPECTIVELY, TO MEET THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254
WP No. 83444 of 2013
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking
issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash
the order dated 28/06/2008 passed by respondent
No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner, produced as per
Annexure-B and the order dated 18/09/2013 passed
by respondent No.1 - the Deputy Commissioner,
produced as per Annexure-A, confirming the order of
the Assistant Commissioner.
2. Heard Sri.Chetan Munnoli, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Sri. P. N. Hatti, learned HCGP for
respondents No.1 and 2, Sri.V. Vidya, learned
counsel for the caveator/respondent No.3 and
Sri.Girish A. Yadawad, learned counsel for
respondent No.6. Perused the materials on record.
3. The case of petitioners is that;
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254
3.1. As per Annexure-D, the land measuring 6.83
acres, situated at M.Sugur Village, Siruguppa
Taluk, Ballari District, was granted in favor of
the father of respondent No.3, by name
Mallappa. However, the said Harijan Mallappa
sold the land to three different persons, under
sale deeds dated 11/05/1970. Those three
persons have, in turn, sold the said 6.83 acres
of land in favour of the petitioner, under a
registered sale deed dated 11/08/1987.
3.2. It was only on 08/10/2004, that respondent
No.3 filed an application under Sections 4 and 5
of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes And
Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of
Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the PTCL Act', for short), seeking
resumption of the land.
3.3. The said application was considered by the
Assistant Commissioner, who allowed the same
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254
to set aside the sale deeds executed by
Mallappa and the subsequent sale deeds. When
this order of the Assistant Commissioner was
challenged before the Deputy Commissioner by
the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner
confirmed the said order by dismissing the
Revision. Therefore, the petitioner is before this
Court.
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that;
4.1. The grant order, the copy of which is produced
as per Annexure-D, does not specify that the
land was granted to the father of respondent
No.3, simply because he belonged to the
Scheduled Caste, it cannot be concluded that
the land was granted to him as he belongs to
such category.
4.2. Secondly, it is his contention that, Annexure-D
is in Telugu language and in a printed format,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254
with only the last condition restricting alienation
for a period of 15 years, being subsequently
overwritten in Kannada. However, no
explanation is provided as to who wrote it and
when. According to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, when similar formats of grants are
taken into consideration, none of such grants
contain a condition similar to that found in the
present Annexure-D.
4.3. Thirdly, it is his contention that, there is
inordinate delay and laches on the part of
respondent No.3 in filing the application under
Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. The grant
was made on 31/05/1957, and the sale deeds
were executed on 11/05/1970, but respondent
No.3 has filed the application under Sections 4
and 5 of the PTCL Act on 08/10/2004, i.e., after
a lapse of about 35 years.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254
4.4. He places reliance on the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama
Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and
Another1, to contend that, inordinate delay
and laches defeats the right, if any, of
respondent No.3. He also relies on a similar
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vivek M.
Hinduja and Others v. Ashwatha and
Others2.
4.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also
placed reliance on the decisions in the case of
Smt.Gouramma alias Gangamma v. Deputy
Commissioner, Haveri District3, and Smt.
Manjula and Others v. Deputy
Commissioner, Bangalore District4, in
support of his contention. In both cases, the
Division Benches of this Court, following the
(2020) 14 SCC 232
(2020) 14 SCC 228
W.A.No.100101 of 2024 dated 29.07.2024
W.P.No.210 of 2023 dated 25.11.2024
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254
dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Nekkanti
Rama Lakshmi (supra), held that, inordinate
delay and laches on the part of the applicants
disentitle them from seeking resumption of the
land.
4.6. In view of the above, he prays for allowing the
petition by setting aside the impugned orders
passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the
Deputy Commissioner, as the same are passed
ignoring the precedence set up by the Hon'ble
Apex Court.
4.7. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that,
during the pendency of the writ petition, on
21/10/2013, possession of the land was handed
over to respondent No.3, and the same is liable
to be restored in favor of the petitioner in the
interest of justice. Accordingly, he prays for
allowing the petition.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254
5. Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondent-State,
submits that, the grant was in favor of a person
belonging to the Scheduled Caste, and since the sale
was within 15 years of the grant, without obtaining
permission for alienation of the property, the
Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner
were right in passing the impugned orders.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that;
6.1. Section 4 of SC/ST Act starts with a non-
obstinate clause that, any sale either before or
after commencement of the Act, in
contravention of the terms of the grant of such
land shall be null and void, and no right title or
interest in such land shall be conveyed or
deemed to have conveyed by such transfer.
When there is clear violation of the grant order
produced as per Annexure-D, the Assistant
Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner
were right in passing the impugned order.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254
6.2. Learned counsel contends that the Deputy
Commissioner has specifically recorded his
finding regarding his satisfaction that the
original grant order had the condition restricting
to alienation for a period of 15 years, and it
was a grant in favour of a person belonging to
scheduled caste. In view of a specific finding
given by the Deputy Commissioner, the said
order cannot be found fault with.
6.3. Learned counsel further submits that, in view of
specific bar for alienation of the land granted
before or after the commencement of the Act,
such alienation is held to be null and void, and
under such circumstances any number of sale
deeds relied on by the petitioner will not enure
to his benefit. Therefore, the petition is liable to
be dismissed.
6.4. Learned counsel also submitted that, the
possession of the land was already handed over
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254
to respondent No.3 during 2013, and for a
period of 12 years, he is in enjoyment of the
property and therefore at this stage, the
petitioner is not entitled for the possession of
the property. Accordingly, he prays for
dismissal of the petition.
7. After hearing both the sides and perusing the
materials on record, it is found that Annexure-D, the
printed format in Telugu language was issued in
favour of the father of respondent No.3, granting the
disputed land in his favour on 31.5.1957. According
to the petitioner, the only condition written at the
end of the grant order in Kannada language is
subsequent insertion. Whereas, it is the contention of
respondent No.3 that it was there even when the
grant order was issued. Of course, it is a disputed
fact for which no finding could be recorded by this
Court. However, the Deputy Commissioner records
his finding that such condition was there at the time
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254
when the grant order was issued. Moreover, on
perusal of Annexure-D, it is found that the format is
in Telugu language, but all other details are filled in
Kannada.
8. Admittedly, the grantee-Mallappa, the father of
respondent No.3 sold the properties under 3 different
sale deeds on 11.05.1970. No materials are placed
before the Court as to when Mallappa died. But the
fact remains that the original grantee never filed an
application for resumption of the land during his life
time. Respondent No.3 being the son of the original
grantee, filed the application under Sections 4 and 5
of the PTLC Act, with the Assistant Commissioner
only on 05.10.2004 i.e. after about 34 years of
executing the sale deeds by his father. There is
absolutely no reason assigned by the applicant as to
why there was such a long delay in filing the
application under Sections 4 and 5 of SC/ST PTCL
Act.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vivek M.
Hinduja (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court,
referring to Section 4 of the SC/ST PTCL Act in the
light of the observations made by it in it's decision in
Pune Municipal Corporation Vs. State of
Maharashtra5, held that, when period of limitation
is not prescribed, the party must approach the
competent court or authority within a reasonable
time, beyond which no relief can be granted.
10. In Nekkanti Ram Lakshmi (supra), the Hon'ble
Apex Court, again referring to Sections 4 and 5 of
the SC/ST PTCL Act held in paras 7 and 8 which
reads as under:
"7. However, the applicant had not produced the
original grant, and, therefore, it was not possible for
the purpose to come to a conclusion that the transfer
was in breach of the non-alienation period. We,
however, find that one of the points raised on behalf
of the appellant deserves acceptance. That point is
2007 (5) SCC 211
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254
that the application for restoration of the land was
made by the heir of Kriyappa after unreasonably long
period i.e. 25 years from when the Act came into
force. Section 4 of the Act itself has a ubiquitous
effect in it, annulling the transfer of granted land
"made either before or after the commencement of
the Act" as null and void. Thus, Act does not specify
now much before the commencement of the Act.
Thus on a plain and critical reading of the Act, it
seems that it covers proceedings made in time before
the Act was enacted. However, we are not called
upon to deal with the reasonableness of this provision
and we do not propose to say anything on this. The
validity of the Act has been upheld by a judgment of
this Court in Manchegowda v. State of Karnataka.
8. However, the question that arises is with regard to
terms of Section 5 of the Act which enables any
interested person to make an application for having
the transfer annulled as void under Section 4 of the
Act. This Section does not prescribe any period within
which such an application can be made. Neither does
it prescribe the period within which suo motu action
may be taken. This Court in Chhedi Lal Yadav v. Hari
Kishore Yadav and also in Ningappa v. Commr.
reiterated a settled position in law that whether
statute provided for a period of limitation, provisions
of the statute must be invoked within a reasonable
time. It is held that action whether on an application
of the parties, or su motu, must be taken within a
reasonable time. That action arose under the
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254
provisions of a similar Act which provided for
restoration of certain lands to farmers which were
sold for arrears of rent or from which they were
ejected for arrears of land from 01.01.1939 to
31.12.1950. This relief was granted to the farmers
due to flood in Kosi River which make agricultural
operations impossible. An application for restoration
was made after 24 years and was allowed. It is in
that background that this Court upheld that it was
unreasonable to do so. We have no hesitation in
upholding that the present application for restoration
of land made by respondent Rajappa was made after
an unreasonably long period and was liable to be
dismissed on that ground. Accordingly, the judgments
of the Karnataka High Court, namely, R. Rudrappa v.
Commr., Maddurappa v. State of Karnataka and G.
Maregouda."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. The Division Bench of this Court in Smt.Gouramma
@ Gangamma (supra) as well as in Smt. M.
Manjula (supra) placing reliance on Nekkanti
Rama Lakshmi (supra) categorically held that, after
long lapse of several years, the application under
Sections 4 and 5 for restitution or resumption of the
land by the grantee or the person claiming under the
grantee cannot be entertained. In M.Manjula
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254
(supra), the Division Bench headed by Hon'ble The
Chief Justice, referred to the amendment made to
the Karnataka SC/ST PTCL Act, notified in Gazette
Notification dated 27th July 2023 to insert Sub-
clauses (c) & (d), and observed that the validity of
the said amendment is under challenge in
W.P.No.27496 of 2023. It also referred to the
decision of Division Bench in Smt. Gouramma @
Gangamma (supra) and also referred to the decision
of Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India V. N.
Murugesan6, to hold that a person guilty of delay
and laches may not be entitled for the indulgence for
grant of equitable relief. When the Hon'ble Apex
Court repeatedly held that the delay and laches
defeats the remedy and the same is followed by this
Court in various decisions, I do not find any reason
to disagree with the same and to form a different
opinion. In the present case admittedly, there is
2022 (2) SCC 25
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254
delay of about 34 long years which is never
explained. Hence, I am of the opinion that, the very
fact that the original grantee has not opted for
resumption of the land during his lifetime and
respondent No.3 has filed such an application after
lapse of 34 long years, he is not entitled for any
relief. These facts are ignored by the Assistant
Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, while
passing the impugned orders. Hence, I am of the
opinion that both these orders are liable to be
quashed.
12. It is an admitted fact that, during the pendency of
this writ petition, the possession of the lands were
handed over to respondent No.3. It is contended by
the learned counsel for respondent No.3 that
respondent No.3 is enjoying the benefit of the land
for over 12 years and therefore the same may not be
disturbed. But the fact remains that the petitioner
who purchased the property by paying the valuable
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254
consideration during 1987, was in possession of the
land till 2013 i.e. for a period of 26 long years. The
same cannot be ignored by this Court. Therefore, I
am of the opinion that the land is required to be
restored to the possession of the petitioners in the
interest of justice. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 28.06.2008 in
application-PTCL/21/2004-05 passed by
respondent No.2 vide Annexure-B and
order dated 18.09.2013 in
PTCL/Appeal/46/2008-09 passed by
respondent No.1 vide Annexure-A, are set
aside.
(iii) Consequently, the application filed by
of SC/ST PTCL Act, is hereby rejected.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5254
(iv) Respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner,
Bellary District, is directed to restore the
land to the possession of the petitioner
and to restore the name of the petitioner
in the revenue records, within three
months from the date of receipt of copy of
this order.
Sd/-
(M.G.UMA)
JUDGE
gab - upto para 5
MKM - para 6 to end
CT:ANB
