IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NOS.1753/2019 & 2817/2019 (SCST) BETWEEN PREMA KUMARI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS D/O SANNAKEMPAIAH R/O GUNGARAMALE VILLAGE TIPTUR TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 201 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR-572 101 2 . ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TIPTUR SUB-DIVISION, TIPTUR TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101 3 . B R RAMEGOUDA S/O RANGEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LRS A. RANGAMMA W/O RANGEGOUDA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS B. G R VIJAYLAKSHMI D/O RANGEGOUDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS C. G R MANJUNATH S/O RANGEGOUDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS D. G R RANGEGOWDA S/O RANGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS E. ASHWATHLAKSHMI D/O RANGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS F. G R SREENIVAS S/O RANGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS G. SHOBHA RANI W/O LATE LINGARAJU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 4. LAKKANNAGOWDA S/O THOPEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LRS A. BASAVANNA GOWDA S/O LAKKANNAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R-3 AND 4 ARE R/OF GUNGARUMALE VILLAGE TIPTUR TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 201 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI I THARANATH POOJARY, AGA FOR R-1 & 2; SRI H P LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-4) THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.01.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NOS.43848-43849/2012 AND ORDER FOR RESTORATION OF THE LAND IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT BY UPHOLDING THE ORDER DATED 30.12.2002 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND THE ORDER DATED 24.09.2010 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-B.
THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant who is the third respondent in the writ petitions filed by respondent Nos.3(A) to 3(G). By an order dated 30th January 2019, the writ petitions filed by the respondent Nos.3(A) to 3(G) were allowed by the learned Single Judge.
2. It is claimed by the appellant that her father was the grantee of the subject land measuring 5 acres. Her father alienated the granted land in 1965-1966. In the year 2000, an application was filed by the appellant under Section 4 read with Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short ‘the PTCL Act’). The application was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner. The appeal preferred by the third and fourth respondents was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner. The third and fourth respondents filed writ petitions in which, the impugned order has been passed. The learned Single Judge relied upon the well settled law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI vs STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER (CIVIL APPEAL NO.1390/2009) and held that the application of the appellant was not made within a reasonable time from the date of alienation and from the date on which the PTCL Act came into force. Therefore, the learned Single Judge proceeded to set aside the impugned orders.
3. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that considering the fact that the object of PTCL Act is to protect the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, there is no prescribed period of limitation provided for making an application for restoration under Section 5 of PTCL Act and therefore, there was no reason for the learned Single Judge to have interfered with the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted on the earlier date that till the year 1999, the appellant was unaware about the alienation, we find from the impugned order that no such plea was raised before the learned Single Judge. Moreover, there is nothing placed on record to indicate that in the application made by the appellant before the Assistant Commissioner, such a plea was raised.
4. It is an admitted position that the application for restoration was filed 22 years after the PTCL Act came into force and 35 years after the date of alienation. Hence, it cannot be said that the application was filed within a reasonable time. The learned Single Judge has rightly followed the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI (supra). There is no merit in the appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed.
The pending interlocutory applications do not survive and are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE bkv