Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1701 (KAR)

Muniakkayamma (since Dead) v. State Of Karnataka

2020-09-04

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

body2020
JUDGMENT Hemant Chandangoudar, J. - Land bearing Sy.No.74 of Bandikodige halli, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk measuring 4 acres was granted in favour of late Smt. Muniakkayamma ie., the mother of the first petitioner and grand mother of other petitioners free of cost by grant order dated 12.04.1961. One of the condition imposed in the grant order was that the grantee should not alienate the land in question for a period of 15 years. 2. Petitioner states that Muniakkayamma was an illiterate person and belonged to Schedule Caste category. Petitioner further states that Muniakkayamma sold the land in question in favour of the 5th respondent by executing registered sale deed dated 27.06.1966 which was in violation of the grant order as the sale was made within 15 years from the date of grant. Thereafter, 6th respondent got a registered sale deed executed in her favour by 5th respondent and also Muniakkayamma on 13.12.1978. The 6th respondent in turn sold the land in favour of 7th respondent vide two registered sale deeds dated 04.09.1995. The 7th respondent in turn sold the land by executing registered sale deed dated 01.07.2005 in favour of 8th respondent. 3. Petitioners filed an application in 2005 under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short "the PTCL Act") for resumption and restitution of the granted land in their favour before the 3rd respondent. 3rd respondent by order dated 19.01.1999 dismissed the application for resumption and restitution holding that the granted land was alienated after the period of 15 years from the date of grant and the same was not in violation of the grant order or the provisions of PTCL Act. 4. Being Aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent challenging the rejection of the application by the 3rd respondent after a lapse of nearly 10 years. The 2nd respondent after condoning the delay in filing the appeal passed an order dated 3.04.2014 dismissing the appeal. Petitioners being aggrieved by the orders passed by the 2 and 3rd respondent rejecting their application for resumption and restitution of granted land in their favour have filed this writ petition. 5. The 2nd respondent after condoning the delay in filing the appeal passed an order dated 3.04.2014 dismissing the appeal. Petitioners being aggrieved by the orders passed by the 2 and 3rd respondent rejecting their application for resumption and restitution of granted land in their favour have filed this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even assuming that the granted land was alienated after a period of 15 years the provisions of 'PTCL Act' are applicable and as such the petitioners are entitled for restoration of land in their favour. He also submits PTCL Act being a welfare legislation the granted land should be restored in favour of the petitioners. He also submits that granted land was alienated without permission from the Government and as such the granted land should be restored in favour of the petitioners. 6. Smt. S.R. Anuradha, learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 7 and 8 submits that the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was filed after an inordinate unexplained delay of more than 17 years. She has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and another,2018 1 KarLR 5 and Chhedi Lal yadav and others vs. Harikishore Yadav (D) Thr. Lrs and Others, (2018) 12 SCC 527 = 2018 (1) Kar L.R. 1 (SC) , wherein it is held that the grantees are not entitled for restoration of land if an application for restoration is not filed within reasonable time from the date of commencement of the PTCL Act. She also submits that even otherwise the impugned orders passed by respondents 2 and 3 are perfectly legal . 7. Sri Sridhar N. Hegde, learned HCGP appearing for respondents No.1 to 4 reiterated the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 7 and 8 and sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. I have analyzed the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the writ papers placed on record. 9. It is a fact that the land in question was granted in favour of Muniakkayamma by grant order dated 12.04.1961 and the said land was alienated on 30.08.1976 by executing a registered sale deed. It is also a fact that the application for resumption and restitution was filed in 1995. 9. It is a fact that the land in question was granted in favour of Muniakkayamma by grant order dated 12.04.1961 and the said land was alienated on 30.08.1976 by executing a registered sale deed. It is also a fact that the application for resumption and restitution was filed in 1995. Admittedly, the application for resumption was filed after an inordinate unexplained delay of 17 years from the date of commencement of 'PTCL Act'. 10. Petitioners having failed to file an application for restoration within a reasonable time are not entitled for restoration having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions stated supra. Since the Petitioners are not entitled for restoration for not having filed an application within reasonable time, validity of the impugned order/s need not be considered . 11. For the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any good ground to entertain this writ petition. Writ petition is, accordingly, stands dismissed.