IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN WRIT PETITION NO.51722/2017 [SC/ST] BETWEEN G. CHANDRAN, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O. P. GOPAL, RESIDING AT NO.7-F, SOMESHWARA NAGAR, 100 FEET RING ROAD, BTM LAYOUT II STAGE, BANGALORE-560 068. … PETITIONER [BY SRI. VIVEKANANDA T.P., ADVOCATE] AND 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE-560 001.
3. SMT. YALLAMMA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, W/O. LATE MUNISWAMY, 4. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O. LATE MUNISWAMY, 5. MUNESH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O. LATE MUNISWAMY, 6. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O. LATE MUNISWAMY, 7. NARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O. LATE MUNISWAMY, 8. YALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O. LATE MUNISWAMY, SINCE DECEASED, REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS I.E., RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 7 AND 9 WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD AS OTHER LR’S OF DECEASED GRANTEE VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 13.12.2018.
9. SHANTHARAJU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O. LATE MUNISWAMY, RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 9 ARE RESIDING AT RAYASANDRA VILLAGE, HUSKUR POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGLAORE URBAN DISTRICT-562 125. ... RESPONDENTS [BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. C.GOPALAKRISHNA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R3-R7 AND R9;
R8 DEAD AND REP. BY R3-R7 AND R9] * * * THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.07.2016 PASSED BY R-2 AT ANNEXURE-‘E’ ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in vide Annexures- ‘G’ and ‘E’ respectively for having restored the land in favour of the grantee.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 7 and 9 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
3. The case of the petitioner is that;
The land bearing Sy. No.91/P40 of Rayasandra village, measuring 1 acre 15 guntas granted was by the Government on 10.12.1982 in favour of Muniswamy and subsequently on 07.06.2006 said Muniswamy sold a portion of the said land measuring 0-18.08 guntas in favour of G.Doreswamy and in turn G.Doreswamy sold the said land in favour of the petitioner herein viz., Chandran on 16.08.2007.
The grantee filed an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition and Transfer of Certain Lands) Act [hereinafter referred to as ‘PTCL Act’ for short] for restoration of the land in the year 2013-14. After considering the application filed by the grantee, the Assistant Commissioner [2nd respondent herein] allowed the application and restored the land in favour of the grantee by Order dated 18.07.2016 produced under Annexure-‘E’. Assailing the same, the petitioner herein has filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner [1st respondent herein]. The Deputy Commissioner after considering the evidence on record dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner by his Order dated 03.10.2017 produced under Annexure-‘G’. Assailing the same, the petitioner is before this Court by filing writ petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has challenged the orders of restoration of respondent Nos.1 and 2 mainly on the sole ground of delay in filing the restoration application as the land has been granted in the year 1982 and the first sale was effected on 07.06.2006 and the second sale was effected on 16.08.2007. However, restoration application came to be filed in the year 2013-14.
There was inordinate delay in filing the restoration application and also passing the orders. Therefore, the orders under challenge are not sustainable due to delay and laches. Hence, prayed for allowing the writ petition and to set aside the orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 7 and 9 i.e., legal representatives of the grantee contended that the land has been granted in the year 1982 i.e., after commencement of the PTCL Act which came into force from 01.01.1979 and after commencement of the PTCL Act, the granted land has been granted under the PTCL Act as per Section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act. The permission under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act is mandatory, thereby the first sale effected in the year 2006 is in violation of the pre- conditions to the grantee. But, the application came to be filed in the year 2013-14. There is only 7 years delay in filing the restoration application and therefore, the said delay cannot be considered as inordinate delay and laches on the part of the grantee and therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner on that ground is not sustainable in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SATYAN VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS reported in 2019(1) Kar.L.R 841 (SC) and hence prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. The learned High Court Government Pleader also supported the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 7 and 9 i.e., legal representatives of the grantee as well as supporting the impugned orders passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also raised some doubt about issuance of the ‘Saguvali Chit’. But, the ‘Saguvali Chit’ was not produced by the legal heirs of the grantee and it is stated that it is a xerox copy. The Deputy Commissioner stated in his order that he has verified the Saguvali Chit Issue Register. Therefore, this Court summoned the original Saguvali Chit Issue Register and verified the entries made therein. At the same time, the learned counsel appearing for the legal representatives of the grantee also filed a certified copy of the Saguvali Chit Issue Register along with other documents.
8. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader, it is not in dispute that the land in question measuring 1 acre 15 guntas has been granted to one Muniswamy by Grant Order dated 10.12.1982. The very grant itself has been made after commencement of the PTCL Act which came into force from 01.01.1979. The perusal of the original Saguvali Chit Issue Register and also the certified copy of the same produced by the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 7 and 9 also reflects that the name of Muniswamy, s/o. Yellappa is shown as grantee. The measurement of the land is mentioned as 1 acre 15 guntas. There is a condition mentioned as 12 years bar for alienation of the granted land by the Government in the register which clearly goes to show that there is a non-alienation of the land for 12 years after grant. On verification of the original Saguvali Chit Issue Register which is maintained by the authorities from 1979 till 2016, the entries available in the Saguvali Chit Issue Register is acceptable as it is maintained by the authorities during the course of their business which clearly reveals that there is 12 years bar for alienation of the granted land by the Government. Admittedly, the first sale was effected in the name of G.Doreswamy in the year 2006. Though 12 years has been lapsed as on the date of the first sale, but as per Section 4(2) of PTCL Act the bar for alienation of the granted land by the Government which categorically defines that after commencement of the PTCL Act, permission of the Government is mandatory for alienation of the granted land. Here in this case, the parties have not produced any documents to show that they have obtained any permission for the purpose of alienation of a portion of the land in the year 2006 or subsequent Sale Deed dated 16.08.2007. Thereby there is a clear violation of Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act as the sale was effected after commencement of the PTCL Act. Therefore, once the condition is violated by the parties by alienating the land granted to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by the PTCL Act without permission, the Sale Deed is hit by Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act.
9. Contention was raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the ground of delay and laches. In my opinion, the restoration application was filed in the year 2013-14 and there is just 7 years delay in filing the said application. In this regard, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SATYAN VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS [supra] has observed in paras 31 and 34 as under:
“31. The aforesaid Section is applicable for grants made either before or after the commencement of the Act. The terms of the grant cannot be contravened, but the last part of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act makes any transfer in violation of sub-section (2) also null and void. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the said Act is crisp and clear in its terms, putting an absolute ban on transfer after the commencement of the Act, without previous permission of the Government. Thus, a bare reading of the provision makes it abundantly clear that it brooks no two interpretations. After the period of fifteen (15) years also, thus, permission was required to be taken.
34. The period of eight (8) years cannot be said to be such, as to amount to such delay and laches as would make the action void, considering that it is in respect of a beneficial legislation for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes community.”
Here in this case, the application is filed only after lapse of 7 years which cannot be considered as inordinate delay in filing the application or passing the order for restoration. Therefore, the contention raised by the leaned counsel for the petitioner on delay and laches is not sustainable in law.
10. In view of contravention of violation of grant rules and under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, the Sale Deeds dated 07.06.2006 and 16.08.2007 are void and thereby the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner after considering the evidence on record have rightly restored the land in favour of the grantee.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, absolutely there is no ground made out by the petitioner to set aside the orders under challenge. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Ksm*