Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 191 (KAR)

Adam v. Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore And Others

2020-01-22

H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

body2020
JUDGMENT H.T. Narendra Prasad, J. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 02.01.2008 passed by respondent No. 2 and order dated 07.10.2011 passed by respondent No. 1 vide Annexure-F and K respectively, whereby the authorities have restored the land in favour of grantee and her children. 2. Brief facts of the case are that land bearing Sy. No. 100 measuring 20 guntas situated at Kogilu Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk was originally granted in favour of one Smt. Venkatamma under Darkasth Rules on 31.10.1979. The original grantee has sold the land in favour of one Smt. Rathnamma by Sale Deed dated 09.06.1994. The said Rathnamma inturn has sold the land in favour of petitioner by a registered Sale Deed dated 05.10.2005. The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) came into force on 01.01.1979. Original grantee and her children have filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act for restoration of land before the Assistant Commissioner on 29.01.2007. The Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 02.01.2008 has allowed the application and restored the land in favour of original grantee. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner has filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5A of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 07.10.2011 has dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. Sri Nandish Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the land was originally granted in favour of one Venkatamma on 31.10.1979 under Darkasth Rules. She sold the land in favour of one Rathnamma by Sale Deed dated 09.06.1994. The Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act has been filed by the original grantee in the year 2007. There is an inordinate delay of 13 years in filing the application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. The application itself is not maintainable. The Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act has been filed by the original grantee in the year 2007. There is an inordinate delay of 13 years in filing the application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. The application itself is not maintainable. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and Another reported in 2018 (1) Kar.L.R. 5 (SC) and relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ningamma v. The Tibetan Childrens Village Hqrs and others in W.A. No. 4092/2017 disposed of on 09.04.2019. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal. 4. Per contra, Sri K.R. Puttaraju, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4 to 7 and learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have contended that the land has been granted on 31.10.1979 in favour of one Venkatamma. The said land was sold on 09.06.1994, after the PTCL Act came into force. The land sold in favour of petitioner is contrary to Section 4(2) of the Act. The authorities have rightly exercised the power under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act and restored the land in favour of the original grantee. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers. 6. It is not in dispute that land bearing Sy. No. 100 measuring 20 guntas situated at Kogilu Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk was granted in favour of Venkatamma under Darkasth Rules on 31.10.1979. The Act came into force on 01.01.1979. Venkatamma has sold the land in favour of Rathnamma by Sale Deed dated 09.06.1994. Rathnamma in-turn has sold the land in favour of petitioner by a registered Sale Deed dated 05.10.2005. The original grantee and her children have filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act for restoration of land on 29.01.2007, i.e., after lapse of 13 years from the date of sale. There is an inordinate delay in filing the application. The application itself is not maintainable. The original grantee and her children have filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act for restoration of land on 29.01.2007, i.e., after lapse of 13 years from the date of sale. There is an inordinate delay in filing the application. The application itself is not maintainable. This view is fortified by the Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra), at paragraph No. 8 has held as under: '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 the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav & Ors. v. Hari Kishore Yadav (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors., 2017 (6) SCALE 459 and also in the case of Ningappa v. Dy. Commissioner & Ors. (C.A. No. 3131 of 2007, decided on 14.07.2011) 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 suo motu, must be taken within a reasonable time. That action arose under the 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 1st January, 1939 to 31st December, 1950. This relief was granted to the farmers due to flood in the 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. 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. Deputy Commissioner, 2000 (1) Karnataka Law Journal, 523 , Maddurappa v. State of Karnataka, 2006 (4) Karnataka Law Journal, 303 and G. Maregouda v. The Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District, Chitradurga and Ors., 2000 (2) Kr.L.J.Sh. N.4B holding that there is no limitation provided by Section 5 of the Act and, therefore, an application can be made at any time, are overruled. Order accordingly.' 7. In the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court has held that the application for restoration of land under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act has to be filed within a reasonable time. In the case on hand, originally land was granted in favour of one Venkatamma on 31.10.1979. Venkatamma has sold the land in favour of Rathnamma on 09.06.1994. The Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The application for restoration of land under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act has been filed on 29.01.2007. There is an unexplained delay of 13 years in filing the application from the date of sale. 8. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra) and also the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ningamma (supra) even after 12 years, invoking the provision of section is considered as inordinate delay. 9. In view of the above, the impugned orders at Annexure-F and K are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 02.01.2008 passed by respondent No. 2 and order dated 07.10.2011 passed by respondent No. 1 vide Annexure-F and K respectively are hereby quashed.