IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.2937 OF 2018 (SC/ST) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. KAMALAMMA AGED 41 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE HANUMAIAH, 2. SMT. BHAGYAMMA AGED 37 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE HANUMAIAH, 3. SRI. GURUVAIAH AGED 57 YEARS, SON OF LATE SIDDAIAH, 4. SRI. KALAPPA AGED 55 YEARS, SON OF LATE SIDDAIAH, 5. SMT. GOWRAMMA AGED 42 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE SIDDAIAH, ALL ARE RESIDING AT BYATARAYANA DODDI VILLAGE, BHUTANAHALLI DHAKALE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-582 106.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SUB-DIVISION, NEAR CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU -560009.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, K G ROAD, BENGLAURU-560009.
3. SRI. G VENKATRAMANAPPA AGED 68 YEARS, 4. SMT. B V LATHA AGED 48 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF SRI. G VENKATARAMANAPPA, 5. SMT. B V SUMALENI AGED 37 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF G VENKATARAMANAPPA, 6. SRI. B V VASANTH KUMAR AGED 34 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF SRI. G VENKATARAMANAPPA, NO.3 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT NO.1213, 23RD MAIN, 23RD CROSS, BANASHANKARI, 2ND STAGE, NEAR BDA COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560 085.
6. SRI. NAGARAJU AGED 43 YEARS, SON OF LATE HANUMAIAH, RESIDING AT 7. BYATARAYANA DODDI VILLAGE, BHUTANAHALLI DHAKALE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-582 106.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NARAYANASWAMY K, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/ RESPONDENT NO.6) THIS APPEAL IS FILED WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26/09/2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.40657/2011; THE WRIT APPEAL PAPERS WERE NOTIFIED ON 12/10/2018 FOR RECTIFICATION OF OFFICE OBJECTIONS AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDRS THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The respondents No.6 to 10 in the writ petition are in appeal, being aggrieved by the order dated 26.09.2018 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.40657 of 2011, by which the writ petition was allowed and the order dated 02.03.2009 and 23.07.2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District were set aside.
2. The first petitioner is the husband and petitioners 2 to 4 are the children of one Kamalamma. Kamalamma acquired land in Sy.No.67 situated at Bhutanahally village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal taluk measuring 4 acres 05 guntas under a registered sale deed dated 29.09.1966 from Sri.Siddaiah. The respondents No.3 to 10 in the writ petition are the legal heirs of Sri.Siddaiah. It is the claim of the respondents No.3 to 10 that the lands in question were granted to them as they belonged to a Schedule Tribe, Bovi community. It is their contention that as it is a granted land, there was non-alienation clause and during the non-alienation period Siddaiah could not have sold and Smt.Kamalamma could not have purchased the said lands in question. At their instance, the Assistant Commissioner initiated proceedings under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PTCL Act’ for short). The Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 02.03.2009 held that the lands in question purchased by Smt.Kamalamma was in violation of PTCL Act and directed restoration of land in favour of respondents No.3 to 10. In the meanwhile, the Special Deputy Commissioner also issued show cause notice dated 10.11.2008 stating that lands in question are gomala lands and asked the petitioners to produce documents. The Deputy Commissioner by the order dated 01.04.2011 directed the Tahsildar, Anekal to reconcile the lands measuring 4 acres 25 guntas in Sy.No.67/P70 with reference to the documents and to take necessary action. The petitioners challenged both the orders dated 23.07.2011 of the Special Deputy Commissioner and 02.03.2009 of the Assistant Commissioner in W.P.No.40657 of 2011.
3. The learned Single Judge having noticed that the petitioners had acquired the property in question under registered sale deed dated 29.09.1966 and in respect of the said sale, action is being initiated nearly after 50 years of the sale in question, set aside the impugned orders and allowed the writ petition.
4. We find no error or illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The petitioners acquired the property under registered sale deed dated 29.09.1966 where action of violation of provisions of PTCL Act was initiated almost after 42 years and the Assistant Commissioner under the impugned order has held that alienation under registered sale deed dated 29.09.1966 as null and void. Any action for violation of any of the provisions of law is required to be initiated within a reasonable time. In the present case, admittedly, the sale which has taken place in the year 1966 is held as null and void in the year 2009. The learned Single Judge relying upon an unreported decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 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 has rightly allowed the writ petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held at paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the above decision 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.”
5. No ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms