IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 09TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT APPEAL NO.3898 OF 2019 (SC-ST) BETWEEN:
1. GOWRAMMA WIFE OF JANGLI RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
2. SAVITHRAMMA WIFE OF JANGLI BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF JANATA COLONY BEHIND CHARMA MANDI SOMAGUDDU ROAD CHALLAKERE TOWN CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522.
...APPELLANTS (BY SRI: S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. AJAPPA SON OF HATTEPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.
2. MANJANNA SON OF HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
3. MACHENDRAPPA SON OF HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
4. KARIYANNA SON OF HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE RESIDENTS OF CHIKKAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE THALAKU HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT CHITRADURGA-577 501.
6. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA SUB DIVISION CHITRADURGA-577 501.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: HARISH N.R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI: B.M. SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R4; SRI: I. THARANATH POOJARY, AGA FOR R5 AND R6) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.08.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NOS.28121 OF 2018 AND 28480 OF 2018 BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION IN WRIT PETITION NOS.28121 OF 2018 AND 28480 OF 2018 AND ETC.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 20.08.2019 passed in Writ Petition Nos.28121 of 2018 and 28480 of 2018 by the learned Single Judge, wherein the writ petitions were allowed and the impugned order of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner were quashed, respondent Nos.3 and 4 therein have filed this appeal.
2. The case of the appellants are that the land bearing Survey Nos.61/P and 153/P measuring 10 acres situated in Chikkammanahalli Village, Challakere Taluk, was granted in favour of one Bommaiah, son of late Jangli Siddaiah on 12.09.1959. The original grantee sold the land in favour of Ajjappa on 04.11.1987, who in turn sold the same in favour of petitioner Nos.2 to 4 on 28.12.1995.
After coming into force of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act (for short ‘PTCL Act’), the legal representatives of the original grantee moved an application before the Assistant Commissioner seeking for restoration of the land. By the order dated 30.05.2017, the application was allowed. The sale deed was set aside and the land was restored to the legal representatives of the grantee. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed before the Deputy Commissioner, who dismissed the same by the order dated 28.06.2018. Questioning both these orders, the purchasers filed the instant writ petitions. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 20.08.2019, allowed the writ petitions and set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, respondent Nos.3 and 4 therein have filed this appeal.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellants contends that the order of the learned Single Judge is erroneous. That the learned Single Judge could not have set aside the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, as the same is in contravention of the condition that the sale is subsequent to the Amendment Act of PTCL Act.
4. The same is disputed to by the respondents’ Counsel.
5. On hearing learned Counsels, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Irrespective of the contentions being advanced, the fact of the case is that the land was sold on 06.11.1987. The proceedings were initiated in the year 2014, namely, after a period of 27 years. The question of initiation of proceedings after a belated period of time was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in 2017 SCC Online 1862. Hence, there is an unreasonable delay of 27 years in invoking the provisions of Section 5 of PTCL Act.
Following the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we do not find any error committed by the learned Single Judge that calls for any interference.
Hence, the appeal being devoid of merits, is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE *bgn/-