IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD W.P.No.58578 OF 2013(SC-ST) BETWEEN:
Smt. Narayanamma W/o Late. Siddappa, Aged about 62 years, R/at Arasanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chikkaballapura District. … Petitioner (By Sri.M.Shivaprakash, Advocate) AND:
1. The Deputy Commissioner Chikkaballapura District, Chikkaballapura-562 101.
2. The Assistant Commissioner Chikkaballapura Sub-Division, Chikkaballapura-562 101.
3. Smt. Mariyamma D/o Venkatashami, Aged about 70 years, Pathur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chikkaballapura Tq-562 101. ... Respondents (By Sri. M.A.Subramani., HCGP. for R1 & R2: Sri.H.N.M. Prasad, Advocate for R3) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the entire records from the office of R1 and R2 in case No.RA/SC & ST/26/2012-13 and quash the impugned order passed by the R1 dated:18.07.2012 vide Annexure-C and R2 in case No.RA/SC&ST/26/2012-13 dated 02.12.2013 vide Annexure-D and etc.
This writ petition, coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18.07.2012 and 02.12.2013 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, respectively produced as Annexures C and D.
2. The land bearing Sy.No.1/3 measuring 3 acres 25 guntas was originally granted to one Venkatashami in the year 1965. The original grantee has sold the said property in favour of one Chikkanarasimhaiah in the year 1967. The said Chikkanarasimhaiah in turn sold the property in favour of Doddasiddappa and Chikkasiddpapan on 18.09.1974. The said Doddasiddappa sold the same in favour of Siddaiah, husband of the petitioner on 12.10.1987. The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, ‘the PTCL Act’) came into force on 01.01.1979. The wife of the original grantee Smt Mariyamma has filed an application in the year 2003 for restoration of the land under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 22.09.2003 vide Annexure-B has rejected the application filed by the third respondent herein. Subsequently, the petitioner herein was developing the land. Again the third respondent filed one more application before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2012 for resumption of land. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 18.07.2012 restored the land in her favour. Being aggrieved by the same, the purchaser - petitioner herein has filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner by order dated 02.12.2013 has dismissed the appeal and being aggrieved by the same the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner vide Annexures C and D.
3. Sri M.Shivaprakash, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that originally the land was granted in the year 1965 and the sale has taken place on 12.12.1967. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The application under Section 5 has been filed in the year 2003, there is a delay in invoking the provisions of the PTCL Act. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in 2017 SCC Online SC 1862 and in the case of VIVEK M.HINDUJA AND OTHERS vs. M.ASHWATHA AND OTHERS reported in 2018 (1) Kar.L.R.176 (SC) and the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.372/2009 & connected matters disposed of on 03.07.2019 in the case of MUNIMADA @ MUNIMADAPPA vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS, he seeks for allowing the writ petition.
4. Per contra, Sri H.N.M.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the grantee and Sri M.A.Subramani, the learned Government Pleader for the and the counsel appearing for the State submit that the land was granted in the year 1965 with a condition of non-alienation for a period of 15 years. Violating the said condition the land has been sold in the year 1967. In view of Section 4 of the PTCL Act the sale has become void. Hence, the Assistant Commissioner has rightly allowed the application filed by the legal representative of the grantee and the Deputy Commissioner has rightly dismissed the appeal. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers.
6. It is not in dispute that the land has been granted in favour of Venkatashami in the year 1965. He has sold the said land in the year 1967 violating the provisions of the grant. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The legal representative of the original grantee has filed an application in the year 2003 after a lapse of 24 years from the date the Act came into force. There is a delay in invoking the provisions of Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NEKKANTI (supra) and VIVEK M.HINDUJA (supra) and a Division Bench of this Court in the case of MUNIMADA (supra) held that the original grantees of the legal representatives have to invoke the provisions of the PTCL Act within a reasonable time. In the case on hand, the grant is of the year 1965 and the first sale of 1967 and the Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The application was filed in the year 2003. There is a delay in invoking the provisions of the PTCL Act. The Assistant Commissioner has rightly rejected the application on 22.09.2003. The legal representatives of the original grantee have filed second application in the year 2012. The same had been entertained by the authorities contrary to the law. Even otherwise, there is a delay in invoking the provisions of the PTCL Act. In view of the aforesaid judgments, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are liable to be quashed.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders at Annexure-C passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 18.07.2012 and Annexure-D passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 02.12.2013 are set aside.
Sd/- JUDGE Cm/-