IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL No.2302 OF 2018 (SC/ST) BETWEEN:
C.N.MUNISHAMAIAH @ MUNISHAMI, SON OF LATE NANJA @ NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHOWDASANDRA VILLAGE, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, PIN:562 102.
...APPELLANT (BY SRI.N SONNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560 009.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 009.
3. S.M.RAJAGOPAL, SON OF LATE MALIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT SATHANUR VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, PIN-562 149.
(BY SRI.S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 AND 2 ...RESPONDENTS SRI.G.BALAKRISHNASHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT No.3) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO i) SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, DATED 04/06/2018 IN WRIT PETITION No.30614/2015 [SC/ST] ii)DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION No.30614/2015 [SC/ST] AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 04.06.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.30614/2015 by which the petition was allowed, the 3rd respondent is in appeal.
2. The petitioner filed writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the orders dated 09.07.2015 and 01.04.2013 passed by the 1st and 2nd respondents respectively. It is stated that the land bearing Sy.No.109 measuring 2 acres situated at Sathanur village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Additional Taluk was granted to one Nanja @ Nanjappa by the then Government of Mysuru in the year 1933-34. The grantee belongs to scheduled caste category and the grant was made with a non-alienation clause not to sell the granted land for a period of 20 years. The said non-alienation period expired on 08.06.1954. The original grantee Nanja sold the land to one Smt.Narayanamma under Registered Sale Deed dated 02.09.1971. The said Narayanamma in turn sold the said land to one Sri. Krishnappa under Registered Sale Deed dated 16.02.1973. The said Krishnappa sold the property in favour of the petitioner under Registered Sale Deed dated 27.02.1988. It is stated that from the said date, the petitioner is in actual peaceful and continuous possession and enjoyment of the land. The 3rd respondent claims to be the son of original grantee Nanja initiated action for resumption of the land by making an application to the 2nd respondent in the year 2011. The petitioner received notice dated 17.11.2011 to which the petitioner replied. It is stated that the 2nd respondent without enquiry or without hearing passed an order holding that the sale made by the grantee is in violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short ‘PTCL Act’) and ordered for resumption of the lands. The petitioner filed appeal before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent by order dated 09.07.2015 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by both the orders passed by the 1st and 2nd respondents, the petitioner filed instant writ petition.
3. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that there is a delay and laches on the part of the 3rd respondent in initiating the proceedings for resumption and also lacks diligence. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the 3rd respondent is in appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsels for the respondents. Perused the appeal papers.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge committed an error in allowing the writ petition setting aside the orders passed by the 1st and 2nd respondents. It is contended that even though the father of the 3rd respondent was granted land on 09.06.1934, the Saguvali Chit was issued on 27.04.1956 with non-alienation period of 20 years. The 1st sale has taken place on 02.09.1971 which is within the non- alienation period, which fact learned Single Judge has failed to notice. The last sale has taken place in the year 1988 and the proceeding is initiated for the restoration in the year 2011, which is within a reasonable time. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is an inordinate delay in initiating the action by the 3rd respondent-appellant for restoration of the land and the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition. The first sale has taken place in the year 1971 and action under the PTCL Act is initiated only in the year 2011, nearly after 40 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner supports the order of the learned Single Judge and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
7. The appellant-3rd respondent claiming to be the son of original grantee Nanja initiated action under the PTCL Act in respect of the land in question in the year 2011 by filing the application before the 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner. It is not in dispute that the original grantee the father of the petitioner was granted land on 09.06.1934 and Saguvali Chit was issued on 02.09.1971. Non-alienation clause prohibited the sale of granted land for a period of 20 years. The father of the appellant-3rd respondent sold the land in question to one Narayanamma under Registered Sale Deed dated 02.09.1971 who in turn sold the same to one Krishnappa under Registered Sale Deed dated 16.02.1973. The petitioner purchased the land in question from the said Krishnappa under Registered Sale Deed dated 27.02.1988. Nearly after 40 years from the date of first sale, the appellant-3rd respondent filed an application before the 2nd respondent under the provisions of the PTCL Act. The order passed by the 2nd respondent would not indicate any enquiry by the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent without properly appreciating the facts, dismissed the appeal. The 3rd respondent-appellant has slept over the matter for a long time and the delay and laches writ large on the face of it. Even assuming that the last sale has taken place in the year 1988, the action initiated by the appellant-3rd respondent is after more than 23 years from the said sale. Any action requires to be initiated within a reasonable time. The learned Single Judge relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to the delay and laches has rightly rejected the writ petition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dealing with the case arising from the PTCL Act in a recent decision in the case of MR.VIVEK M HINDUJA AND OTHERS v/s MR.M.ASHWATHA AND OTHERS in Civil Appeal No.2166 of 2009 decided on 06.12.2017 at paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of has held as under:
“3. The original grantees in these cases, who were members of the Scheduled Caste Community, were granted the lands by a common grant sometime in the year 1946-1947. By that grant each of the grantees was given two acres of land. The successors of the grantees or the grantees themselves transferred the lands to certain individuals sometime in the year 1967. These transferees further transferred the lands after 8/10 years to different persons. The present Appellants are purchasers from the land transferees.
4. Arguments have been addressed before us at length on whether the present Appellants had perfected their titles on the date of the coming into force of the Karnataka Act. We are not inclined to go into this question because the instant matters can be decided on an aspect settled by this Court in the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav and Ors. V. Hari Kishore Yadav (dead) through L.Rs and Ors. MANU/SC/0781/2017 : 2017 (6) Scale 459 and Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and Anr. MANU/SC/1814/2017 : 2018 (6) Kar. L.J. 792 (SC), C.A.No.1390 of 2009, dated 26-10-2017. In these two decisions, one of which arose under the Karnataka Act, this Court has held that the authorities entrusted with the power to annul proceedings purported to have been made by the original grantees, must exercise their powers to do so, whether on an application, or suo motu, within a reasonable time since no time is prescribed by law for taking such action. In the decided cases, action had been initiated after about 20 to 25 years of the coming into force of the Karnataka Act.
5. In the present cases, it is undisputed that the action had been initiated after almost 20 years from the coming into force of the Karnataka Act. In principle, we do not see any reason why the delay in the present cases should be considered to be reasonable. There is no material difference between the period of delay in the present cases and the decided cases.”
8. The principles laid down in the above decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court would aptly apply to the facts of the present case. The order of the learned Single Judge would not suffer from any infirmity or perversity so as to call for interference. The learned Single Judge has passed well reasoned order. The appellant-respondent has not made out any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE SMJ CT:bms