IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.44362/2014(SC-ST) BETWEEN:
SMT JAYAMMA W/O MARUDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT ALUR VILLAGE AT/POST KASABA HOBLI, HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577543 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRABHUSWAMY N., ADV. FOR SRI.V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT CHITRADURGA-577543 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA SUB DIVISION CHITRADURGA-577543.
4. SRI.KANTAPPA S/O RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT ALUR VILLAGE AT POST KASABA HOBLI, HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA-577543 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, HCGP. FOR R1 TO R3, R4 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD.23.7.2014 PASSED BY THE R-2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA VIDE ANNEX-D AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.7.2014 passed by the respondent No.2- Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-D.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the land bearing Sy.No.170/27 measuring 1 acre of Alur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hiriyur Taluk was granted in favour of Smt. Rangamma on 4.7.1961. The said Rangamma sold the said land in favour of Basanna s/o Bheemaiah. The said Basanna sold the same in favour of Marudappa, husband of the petitioner herein by registered sale deed dated 28.7.1967. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short “the Act”) came into force on 1.1.1979. The original grantee Smt.Rangamma filed an application under Sections 4 & 5 of the said Act on 14.6.2007 for restoration of the land before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 30.3.2010 allowed the said application and restored the land in favour of the original grantee. Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed by the petitioner’s husband before the Deputy Commissioner challenging the said order of the Assistant Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 23.7.2014 dismissed the application and has confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that originally the land was granted in favour of Rangamma by the competent authority on 4.4.1961. The said Rangamma sold the said land in favour of the Basanna s/o Bheemaiah. The Basanna in turn sold the same in favour of Marudappa, husband of the petitioner herein by registered sale deed dated 28.7.1967. The said Act came into force with effect from 1.1.1979. Thereafter, the original grantee Smt.Rangamma filed an application under Sections 4 & 5 of the said Act on 14.6.2007 for restoration of the land i.e., 27 years after the Act came into force. There is delay in filing the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. In support of his case, he has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi –v- State of Karnataka and Another reported in 2018 (1) Kar. LR 5 (SC). Therefore, he sought for allowing the petition.
4. The learned HCGP appearing for the State submits that the land has been granted to the original grantee on 4.4.1961 and the condition prevailing as on the date of grant was 15 years. The property has been alienated before 15 years and hence, there is violation of terms of grant.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the State.
Respondent No.4 is served but remained unrepresented.
6. It is not in dispute that the land bearing Sy.No.170/27 measuring 1 acre of Alur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hiriyur Taluk was granted in favour of Smt. Rangamma on 4.4.1961. The said Rangamma sold the said land in favour of Basanna s/o Bheemaiah. The said Basanna in turn sold the same in favour of Marudappa, husband of the petitioner herein by registered sale deed dated 28.7.1967. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short “the Act”) came into force on 1.1.1979. The original grantee Smt.Rangamma filed an application under Sections 4 & 5 of the said Act on 14.6.2007 for restoration of the land before the Assistant Commissioner. There is delay of 27 years in invoking the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra) has held as follows:
“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. vs. Hari Kishore Yadav (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors., 2017(6) SCALE 459 and also in the case of Ningappa vs. 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 vs. Deputy Commissioner, 2000 (1) Karnataka Law Journal, 523, Maddurappa vs. State of Karnataka, 2006 (4) Karnataka Law Journal, 303 and G. Maregouda vs. 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. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated supra, for invoking the provisions of Sections 4 and 5, an application has to be filed within a reasonable time. In the case on hand, land was granted on 4.4.1961, the Act came into force with effect from 1.1.1979 and the application for resumption of granted land is filed on 14.6.2007. There is unreasonable delay of 27 years in invoking the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. Hence, the application was liable to be dismissed.
8. In view of the observations made above, the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner vide Annexures-A and D respectively are unsustainable.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated 23.7.2014 passed by the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-D is hereby quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE DM