IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN WRIT PETITION No.27756 of 2015 (SC/ST) BETWEEN SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O. CHIKKAMUNICHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT ERENAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT – 562 103. (BY SRI ANANDA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPURA – 562 103.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPURA – 562 103.
3. SRI K.V. NARASIMHAMAPPA @ CHIKKANARASIMHAMAPPA, S/O YAKASHAPPA, AGE:MAJOR, PIN:562 103.
4. SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O. YAKASHAPPA, …PETITIONER AGE:MAJOR, PIN:562 103.
5. SRI K.M. POOJAPPA S/O. YAKASHAPPA, AGE:MAJOR, No.3 TO 5 ARE ALL RESIDING AT:
KUDITHI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT – 562 103.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA V., ADVOCATE for R3-R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-G PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLAPURA, ORDER DATED 02.06.2014 BY DIRECTING THE SAME IS ILLEGAL AND VOID.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 02.06.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkaballapura District, confirming the order of resumption and restoration dated 14.12.2012 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkaballapura District.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5 as well as learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
3. The land in Sy.No.215 (New No.241) measuring 2 acres 8 guntas has been granted to Poojiga vide land grant order dated 24.12.1929 with the condition of non- alienation for 20 years from the date of grant order. Subsequently, the legal heirs of the said Poojiga sold 1 acre 32 guntas of the said land to one Lakshmamma on 07.04.1984. In view of commencement of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (‘PTCL Act’ for short) with effect from 01.01.1979, the legal heirs of Poojiga, original grantee filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act before the Assistant Commissioner for restoration of the land. After issuing notice to the petitioner and considering the evidence on record, the Assistant Commissioner resumed the land and restored the land in favour of the legal heirs of the grantee i.e. respondent Nos.3 to 5 vide his order dated 14.12.2012. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5A of the PTCL Act and after considering the arguments, the Deputy Commissioner also dismissed the appeal by confirming the order of Assistant commissioner vide order dated 02.06.2014 Annexure-G. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed this writ petition for setting aside the impugned orders.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the land in question has been granted in the year 1929. As per the grant order, 20 years was the bar for alienation. The sale took place in the year 1984 after 55 years. The application filed by the legal heirs of the grantee was in the year 2010, after 26 years of the alleged sale. The Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner have not considered the inordinate delay in filing the application while restoring the land. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and another [2018(1) Kar.L.R 5 (SC)] has held the order of restoration cannot be sustainable due to delay of more 20 to 25 years. Therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned orders.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5 objected the petition mainly on the ground that during the pendency of the restoration application before the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner has sold the land to the third party under sale deed dated 02.08.2012. A copy of the sale deed is also before this Court, but the petitioner suppressed the same before the Assistant Commissioner and even the appeal came to be filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner by suppressing the sale. Even after suffering an order from Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner has filed this writ petition by suppressing the said sale deed. The respondents came to know about the execution of the sale deed by the petitioner during the pendency of the original proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, he contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition.
6. Learned High Court Government pleader also supported the orders of the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner. Once the petitioner sold the property during the pendency of the original proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the order of the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner in this petition. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the same.
7. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, especially the sale deed produced by learned counsel for the respondents, it clearly goes to show that on 02.08.2012, this petitioner sold the land to one Manohar under the registered sale deed. Admittedly, the land has been granted in the year 1929. The sale was on 07.04.1984 after the commencement of the PTCL Act, 1978. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Satyan vs. Deputy Commissioner and others in Civil Appeal Nos.2976-2983/2019, dated 30.04.2019, in view of the commencement of the PTCL Act as on 01.01.1979, in respect of granted land, even after lapse of statutory non-alienation period, the permission of the government under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act is mandatory. Though there was inordinate delay in filing the application by respondent Nos.3 to 5 before the Assistant Commissioner almost 26 years after the alienation and almost after more than 50 years of the grant, but the very petitioner has sold the land to the third party on 02.08.2012 during the pendency of the restoration application before the Assistant Commissioner. As on the date of passing of the order by the Assistant Commissioner on 14.02.2012, the petitioner has already lost interest over the land and the appeal was also filed by the petitioner by suppressing the said sale deed. Even the purchaser has not chosen to file any appeal before the Deputy Commissioner or before this Court. Therefore, once the petitioner lost right, title or interest over the property by alienating the property during the pendency of the original proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, he has no locus standi to file the petition and even otherwise, the Assistant Commissioner forfeited the sale of the petitioner and ordered resumption and restoration of the land to respondent Nos.3 to 5. Such being the case, the petitioner has no locus standi to file the appeal suppressing the fact of sale made to a third party under a the registered sale and after suffered an order before the Deputy Commissioner filing this writ petition is not maintainable. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE mv