IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL No.1368 OF 2017 (SC/ST) BETWEEN SMT K PRAMILA DAUGHTER OF LATE KARAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAMSAGARA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK-562 106. BENGALURU DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT (BY SRI K. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MULTISTORIED BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
4. A.V.THOMAS SON OF VARGHEESE, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.3362 13TH MAIN, 8TH CROSS, H.A.L. II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 008.
5. SMT K.PUSHPA DAUGHTER OF G.KANDASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1898, 31ST CROSS, 9TH MAIN, BANASANKARI II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 070.
6. SMT S.KAMALAMMA WIFE OF N.SUBRAMANI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1485, 27TH CROSS, 24TH MAIN, B.S.K. II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 070.
7. P.S.KRISHNA MURTHY SON OF P.R.SRINIVASA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1313, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 078.
8. C.RAMACHANDRAN SON OF CHANDRA THIRUMALA NAIDU MAJOR, 9. SYED NAZEERUDDIN SON OF KHASIM SAB, MAJOR, 8 AND 9 RESIDING AT SINGENA AGRAHARA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK-562 106. BENGALURU DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 3 SRI. B. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT No.6, RESPONDENT Nos.4,7,8 AND 9 ARE SERVED RESPONDENT No.5-SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 07/02/2018) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.7971/2016 DATED 18/3/2016.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18.03.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.7971 of 2016, by which the petition was dismissed, the writ petitioner is in appeal.
2. Even though there is delay in filing the appeal, we have heard the appeal on merit.
3. The petitioner filed writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari to quash order bearing No.K.SC.ST.196 of 2011-
12 dated 15.10.2015 (Annexure–A) passed by the 2nd respondent and order dated 19.02.2010 passed by the 3rd respondent.
4. The petitioner states that the land bearing Sy.No.57 measuring 2 acres situated at Singena Agrahara Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District, was granted to one Sri. Junjappa in the year 1944-45. Saguvali Chit in respect of the said land was issued on 15.11.1944. The petitioner claims that she is the grand daughter of Junjappa and they belong to scheduled caste category. The grantee Junjappa and his brother’s son Maddurappa had sold the property under sale deed dated 16.01.1954. The property has changed the hands under sale deeds dated 21.02.1985, 18.11.1993, 22.02.1996, 20.01.1996 and 30.10.1996. It is stated that the above alienations in respect of the property in question are without obtaining necessary permissions under the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain lands) Act, 1978 (for short ‘the PTCL’ Act). The petitioner filed application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, to declare sale deeds as null and void and to restore the possession. The proceedings under the PTCL Act was initiated in the year 2003-04. The 3rd respondent Assistant Commissioner disposed of the petition granting liberty to the petitioner to file application with necessary documents, as the petitioner had failed to produce the grant certificate. Thereafter, the petitioner said to have obtained the necessary documents and initiated fresh action under Section 5 of the PTCL Act in K.SC-ST.No.9 of 2006-07. The 3rd respondent by his order dated 19.02.2010 dismissed the proceedings initiated by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner filed appeal before the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner. The 2nd respondent- Deputy Commissioner by order dated 15.10.2015 dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner while dismissing the appeal had observed that the proceedings is initiated after 61 years from the date of grant and in the absence of original grant, it is not clear as to whether the terms and conditions of the grant has been violated. Aggrieved by the order of the 2nd and 3rd respondents the appellant filed the instant writ petition. The learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition holding that the respondents have passed the order on the material available on record, which does not disclose grant of land in favour of the petitioner’s grand father-Junjappa. Hence, the petitioner is in appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsels for the respondents. Perused the appeal papers.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge committed an error in rejecting the writ petition without assigning any proper reasons. The learned counsel states that there was no proper enquiry before passing the impugned orders by the 2nd and 3rd respondents. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge failed to examine as to whether there was any violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act and Rules, since the land was granted to Junjappa, the grand father of the petitioner. Hence, prays for allowing the appeal.
7. Per contra, learned counsels for the respondents submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. There is no material whatsoever in support of the contentions raised by the petitioner-appellant. There is inordinate delay in initiating the proceedings under the provisions of the PTCL Act. Thus, prays for dismissal of the appeal.
8. On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and having gone through the appeal papers, we are of the view that the appellant has not made out any ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The order of the learned Single Judge is neither perverse nor erroneous so as to warrant interference. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the grand daughter of one Sri. Junjappa, who belong to scheduled caste category, was granted land bearing old Sy.No.57 New Sy.No.204/1 and No.204/2 totally measuring 2 acres 9 guntas in Singena Agrahara Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District, in the year 1944-45. Saguvali Chit in respect of the said land was issued on 15.11.1944. According to the petitioner the 1st sale in respect of the property in question was in the year 1954. Thereafter, more than six sale transactions had taken place in respect of the land in question. The petitioner initiated proceedings under the provisions of the PTCL Act only in the year 2003-2004, that too without proper documents. The 3rd Respondent- Assistant Commissioner passed the orders by disposing of the proceedings reserving liberty to the petitioner to file fresh application by producing the relevant documents. Again the petitioner initiated action under the provision of the PTCL Act in the year 2006-2007. In the said proceedings also, the petitioner failed to produce relevant documents such as grant certificate and sale deeds. In the absence of the relevant documents the Authorities have expressed that they are not in a position to examine as to whether it is granted land and whether there is any violation of the terms and conditions of the grant. The Authorities, in the absence of relevant documents are justified in rejecting the application.
9. Moreover, there is inordinate delay in initiating the proceedings under the provisions of the PTCL Act. The petitioner claims that the land was granted to her grand father in the year 1944-45 and states that the 1st sale has taken place in the year 1954. The proceedings under the provision of the PTCL Act was initiated in the year 2003- 2004. The proceedings was initiated after nearly 50 years from the alleged first sale and nearly 26 years after coming into force of the 1978 Act. There is no bonafide on the part of the petitioner in initiating the proceedings. Any proceedings or exercise of right is to be made within a reasonable time. Non-exercise of the right within a reasonable period would amount to non-existence of right. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a case arising under the PTCL Act has in the case of MR.VIVEK M HINDUJA AND OTHERS Vs. MR.M.ASHWATHA AND OTHERS in Civil Appeal No.2166 of 2009 decided on 06.12.2017, has held at paragraphs 3, 4 5 and 10 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
10. We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid observations. It is, however, necessary to add that where limitation is not prescribed, the party ought to approach the competent Court or authority within reasonable time, beyond which no relief can be granted. As decided earlier, this principle would apply even to suo motu actions.”
10. The above principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court would squarely apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence, we are of the view that there is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.1/2017 for condonation of delay stands rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE SMJ CT:bms