IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL No.4092 OF 2017 (SC/ST) BETWEEN:
SMT. NINGAMMA WIFE OF LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS RESIDING AT SHESHAGIRI COLONY BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK-562 109.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE TIBETIAN CHILDREN'S VILLAGE HQRS:DHARMASHALA, CANTT-1786216 KANGRA DISTRICT HIMACHAL PRADESH REPRESENTED BY IT’S ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER MR. TSERING DORGEE SON OF LUNG TOK AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDENT OF SHESHAGIRIHALLY HEJJALA POST, BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 109.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA-562 109.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION RAMANAGARA-562 109.
4. MR.T SURESH KUMAR @ T SURESH GOWDA SON OF THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS NO.65, VANI VILAS ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560 004.
(BY SRI. S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA FOR RESPONDENT Nos.2 AND 3) ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.15802/2007 DATED 07/04/2017.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 07.04.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.15802 of 2007, whereby the learned Single Judge has quashed the order dated 10.07.2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner restoring the order dated 09.06.2006 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, respondent No.3 is in appeal.
2. The petitioner filed writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking for a direction to the first respondent/Deputy Commissioner to consider the review petition or in the alternative to quash order dated 10.07.2007 of the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner in Appeal No.LND SC/ST(A) 54/2006-07. It is stated that the land in question was granted to the third respondent through dharkasth order dated 17.02.1978 and Saguvali Chit was issued on 31.05.1978 with non- alienation clause not to sell for a period of 15 years. An application was made after the period of non-alienation for conversion of land from agriculture to residential purpose which was granted by order dated 27.05.1994. Subsequent to obtaining the conversion, the third respondent sold the property in favour of the vendor of the petitioner on 04.06.1994. The petitioner thereafter purchased the land on 25.06.1994. The third respondent filed an application before the second respondent for violation of the provisions of Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act 1978. The Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 09.06.2006 rejected the application of the third respondent and held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions of the PTCL Act would have no application. The third respondent being aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner filed appeal before the first respondent/Deputy Commissioner. The first respondent/Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 10.07.2007 allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner dated 09.06.2006 and restored the land in favour of the original grantee. The petitioner who is the subsequent purchaser in the year 1994 aggrieved by the order of the first respondent/Deputy Commissioner filed the instant writ petition contending that the Deputy Commissioner has failed to consider the fact that the land had been converted for non-agricultural residential purpose by order dated 27.05.1994 that too after the non-alienation period. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 07.04.2017 quashed the order dated 10.07.2007 of the first respondent/Deputy Commissioner and restored the order dated 09.06.2006 passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Hence, the respondent No.3 is in appeal.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondents No.2 and 3.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the sale which has taken place in the year 1994 was in violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act and admittedly, the petitioner had not taken permission to purchase the land. Mere conversion of land would not absolve the purchaser from taking permission under the provisions of PTCL Act. The object of the Act is to protect the lower strata of the Society and if the sale is not set aside, the purpose of the Act would not be served. Hence, prays for allowing the appeal.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate justifies the order passed by the learned Single Judge and submits that any action to challenge violation of provisions of PTCL Act would have to be initiated within a reasonable time and in the case on hand, the action is initiated by the third respondent-appellant after more than 10 years from the date of sale. Hence prays for dismissal of the appeal.
6. There is no dispute with regard to land being granted to the third respondent under Dharkast order dated 17.02.1978 and issuance of Saguvali Chit on 31.05.1978 with non-alienation clause, not to sell the property for a period of 15 years. After expiry of the non-alienation period, the petitioner applied for conversion of the lands in question from agricultural purpose to that of residential purpose which was granted by the competent authority by order dated 27.05.1994. Thereafter, sale of the lands in question has taken place on 04.06.1994 to the vendor of the petitioner and petitioner purchased the same on 25.06.1994.
7. The PTCL Act has been enacted with a specific purpose to protect the interest of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in whose favour grants are made. The main purpose of the Act is to prohibit transfer of certain lands granted by the Government to persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. In the case on hand, the third respondent was not cultivating the land and she made an application to the competent authority for conversion of land from agricultural purpose to that of residential purpose. The Competent authority, by order dated 27.05.1994 granted the same. The conversion applied by the appellant and sanctioned by the competent authority is subsequent to the expiry of non- alienation period. The purpose for which, the land was granted has no longer remained the same. Taking note of the conversion order, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the conversion granted would deemed to be permission for alienating the property. The alienation by the appellant is in respect of converted land. Hence the learned Single Judge rightly was of the opinion that violation as contemplated under the Act had not occurred.
8. The grant through Dharkast order is on 17.02.1978.
Saguvali chit is issued on 31.05.1978. On an application by the appellant-3rd respondent, conversion was granted on 27.05.1994, thereafter, on 04.06.1994 the appellant-3rd respondent sold the property in favour of the vendor of the petitioner. The appellant-3rd respondent initiated proceedings under the provisions of the PTCL Act only in the year 2006 i.e., after more than 12 years from the date of sale. The appellant, who executed the sale deed in the year 1994 has kept quite for nearly 12 years and thereafter initiated action. Any action for violation of any of the provisions of the Act or Rules shall be initiated within a reasonable time. Reasonable time is settled by the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court as two years. 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 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.”
The above decision would squarely applicable to the facts of the present case also. Hence on this ground also the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
9. On going through the appeal papers and the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference. No ground is made out to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE mpk/-*CT:bms