Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 24 (KAR)

Raju M. v. Deputy Commissioner And Others

2020-01-03

H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 23.01.2012 (Annexure-B) passed by the first respondent and the order dated 30.09.2011 (Annexure-A) passed by the second respondent, whereby the land has been restored in favour of the legal representative of the original grantee by allowing the application filed under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, the PTCL Act). 2. The brief facts of the case is that the land bearing Sy.No.149 measuring 5 acres 6 guntas of Holebenavalli Village, Nidige Hobli, Shimoga Taluk was originally granted to grandfather of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 one Sri Chathra Naika by Government order dated 07.11.1952 under the Land Grant Rules. The original grantee sold 2 acres of land in favour of Smt.Bheemli Bai who is the grandmother of the petitioner, by a registered sale deed dated 07.06.1965. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The legal representative of the original grantee filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act on 30.01.1994 for restoration of the granted land in their favour. The Assistant Commissioner, after hearing the parties allowed the application by order dated 30.09.2011 and restored the land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner by order dated 23.01.2012 dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the same petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. Sri S.V.Prakash, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that land was originally granted in favour of Chathra Naika on 07.11.1952. The said original grantee sold 2 acres of land in favour of the grandmother of the petitioner by a registered sale deed dated 07.06.1965. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979, the application for restoration of the land has been filed on 30.01.1994 and there is a delay of 15 years in filing the application. The application filed by the legal representative of the original grantee itself is not maintainable. In support of his case, he has relied on the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and Another reported in 2017 SCC Online SC 1862 . The application filed by the legal representative of the original grantee itself is not maintainable. In support of his case, he has relied on the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and Another reported in 2017 SCC Online SC 1862 . Hence, he sought for allowing the petition. 4. Per contra, Smt.Savitramma, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contended that the land was granted on 07.11.1952 and as on the date of grant the condition prevalent is non-alienation for ever. By violating the condition the original grantee sold the land in favour of the petitioner. The Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have rightly allowed the application and restored the land to the legal representatives of the original grantee. Hence, she sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers. 6. It is not in dispute that the land bearing Sy.No.149 measuring 5 acres 6 guntas of Holebenavalli Village, Nidige Hobli, Shimoga Taluk was originally granted to grandfather of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 i.e., one Chathra Naika by Government Order dated 07.11.1952 under the Land Grant Rules. The said original grantee Chathra Naika sold 2 acres of land in favour of Smt.Bheemly Bai who is the grandmother of the petitioner herein by a registered sale deed dated 07.06.1965. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The legal representative of the original grantee filed an application for restoration of the granted land under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act on 30.01.1994 after a lapse of 15 years from the date the Act came into force. The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti (supra) has held as hereinbelow: '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 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. 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. 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 above judgment the Honble Apex Court has clearly held that the application for restoration of the land under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act has to be filed within a reasonable time. In the case on hand, the application was filed after 15 years from the date the PTCL Act came into force and there is unreasonable delay in filing the application. Even a Davison Bench of this Court in W.A.No.4092/2017 disposed of on 09.04.2019 has held that the 12 years delay in filing the application is an inordinate delay. 8. In the case on hand, the application was filed after 15 years from the date the PTCL Act came into force and there is unreasonable delay in filing the application. Even a Davison Bench of this Court in W.A.No.4092/2017 disposed of on 09.04.2019 has held that the 12 years delay in filing the application is an inordinate delay. 8. In view of the law laid down by Honble Apex Court and of this Court in the aforesaid cases, the application itself is not maintainable. 9. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.01.2012 passed by the first respondent vide Annexure-B and the order dated 30.09.2011 passed by the second respondent vide Annexure-A are hereby quashed.