IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.18440 OF 2018 (SCST) BETWEEN:
SMT. SHARADA V PATIL, W/O LATE V.B. PATIL, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O NO.20, 3RD MAIN, AMARAJYOTHI LAYOUT, SANJAY NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 094.
... PETITIONER AND:
(BY SRI PADMANABHA MAHALE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI VARAPRASAD R., ADVOCATE) 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPURA – 562 101.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB – DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPURA – 562 101.
3. SRI.G.MANJUNATHA, S/O GOVINDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O AJJAVARA VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI – 562 101, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT.
4. SMT. THIMMAKKA, W/O LATE PILLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 92 YEARS, R/O AJJAVARA VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI – 562 101, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT.
5. SMT. RATHNAMMA, D/O LATE PILLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O AJJAVARA VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI – 562 101, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT.
6. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA, D/O LATE PILLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O AJJAVARA VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI – 562 101, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI K.RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R6) *** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.11.2017 PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT IN CASE NO.R.A./SCST/17/2015-16, VIDE ANNEXURE – R AND THE ORDER DATED 16.11.2010 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN CASE NO.PTCL (CHIKKA) 108/2010-11, VIDE ANNEXURE – P AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘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 13.11.2017 passed by the respondent No.1 vide Annexure-R and the order dated 16.11.2015 passed by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-P.
2. The brief facts of the case is that the land bearing Sy. No.92, New Sy. No.180 measuring 1 Acre 27 Guntas situated in Ajjavara Village, Nandi Hobli, Chikkaballapura District, which was originally granted on 16.10.1962 in favour of one Pillappa. The said Pillappa sold an extent of 1 Acre of land in favour of Chikkadasappa through a registered sale deed dated 12.08.1968. Remaining extent of 20 guntas of land was also sold by the said Pillappa in favour of Narasimhaiah through a registered sale deed dated 18.06.1969. In turn, Narasimhaiah sold the said land measuring 20 guntas to Nagarathnachari through a registered sale deed dated 16.11.1977. Thereafter, Nagarathnachari and his minor son sold the said land measuring 20 guntas one Anandappa through a registered sale deed dated 26.06.2001. Finally, said N.Anandappa and his children have sold the said land through a registered sale deed dated 26.02.2008 in favour of petitioner and handed over the actual possession of the property in favour of the petitioner.
3. The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has come into force on 01.01.1979. After the Act came into force, the respondent No.3 – G.Manjunatha filed an application before the respondent No.2 – Assistant Commissioner, Chikkaballapura Sub-Division, Chikkaballapura under the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act for restoration of possession of the land. On 16.11.2015, the Assistant Commissioner has allowed the said application filed by the respondent No.3, LR of the original grantee and restored the lands in his favour.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner, Chikkaballapura District, Chikkaballapura under Section 5(A) (1a) of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on 13.11.2017 vide Annexure-R. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure – R & P.
5. Mr. Padmanabha Mahale, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the land measuring 1 Acre 27 guntas situated in Ajjavara Village, Nandi Hobli, Chikkaballapura District was originally granted in favour of one Pillappa on 16.10.1962. Out of 1 Acre 27 Guntas, the said Pillappa has sold 1 Acre of land on 12.08.1968 through a registered sale deed dated 12.08.1968 in favour of Chikkadasappa. Remaining 20 guntas of land has also been sold to one Narasimhaiah through a registered sale deed dated 18.06.1969.
6. He further contended that the Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The LR of the original grantee has filed an application under the provisions of Section 4 and 5 of the Act on 28.03.2011. There is a delay of 31 years in invoking provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. In support of his contentions, he has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI vs STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in 2018(1) KLR 5 SC. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.
7. Per contra, Mr. K.Raghavendra, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 to 6 submitted that the respondents are villagers and they are illiterates. They are not aware of the Act came into force. Only respondent No.3 is the male member in the family, he has filed the application in the year 2011 when they came to know of the Act. If an opportunity is given to the respondents they could file the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in invoking Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. He further contended that under Section 4(2) of the Act if any sale has taken place without obtaining prior permission of the Government, the transaction will become null and void. Therefore, the respondent – Authorities have rightly passed the order in accordance with law and hence he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
8. Smt. Savithramma, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent – State would submit that when the land was originally granted to one Pillappa in the year 1962 with a condition that not to alienate the property for a period of 15 years from the date of grant. Since, the alleged transactions have been taken place within the prescribed period, the respondent – Authorities have rightly set aside those transactions. Hence, she prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
9. Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the writ papers.
10. It is not in dispute that the land bearing Sy. No.92, New Sy. No.180 measuring 1 Acre 27 Guntas situated in Ajjavara Village, Nandi Hobli, Chikkaballapura District, was originally granted on 16.10.1962 in favour of one Pillappa and on 12.08.1968 he sold an extent of 1 Acre of land in favour of Chikkadasappa through a registered sale deed dated 12.08.1968. Remaining extent of 20 guntas of land was also sold by the said Pillappa in favour of Narasimhaiah through a registered sale deed dated 18.06.1969. After several transactions, finally, the said land was sold through a registered sale deed dated 26.02.2008 and handed over the actual possession of the property in favour of the petitioner.
11. The Act came into force on 01.01.1979. Thereafter, the LR of the original grantee filed an application on 28.03.2011 before the respondent No.2 under the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act for resumption of granted lands. There is delay of 31 years in invoking the provisions of the Act. In the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI, referred to supra, at Para-8, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus:
“8. However, the question that arises is with regard to terms of Section 5 of the Act which enables any interested person to make an application for having the transfer annulled as void under Section 4 of the Act. This Section does not prescribe any period within which such an application can be made. Neither does it prescribe the period within which suo motu action may be taken. This Court in the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav & Ors. vs. Hari Kishore Yadav (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors., 2017 (6) SCALE 459 and also in the case of Ningappa vs. Dy. Commissioner & Ors. (C.A. No. 3131 of 2007, decided on 14.07.2011) reiterated a settled position in law that whether Statute provided for a period of limitation, provisions of the Statute must be invoked within a reasonable time. It is held that action whether on an application of the parties, or suo motu, must be taken within a reasonable time. That action arose under the provisions of a similar Act which provided for restoration of certain lands to farmers which were sold for arrears of rent or from which they were ejected for arrears of land from 1st January, 1939 to 31st December, 1950. This relief was granted to the farmers due to flood in the Kosi River which make agricultural operations impossible. An application for restoration was made after 24 years and was allowed. It is in that background that this Court upheld that it was unreasonable to do so. We have no hesitation in upholding that the present application for restoration of land made by respondent –Rajappa was made after an unreasonably long period and was liable to be dismissed on that ground. Accordingly, the judgments of the Karnataka High Court, namely, R. Rudrappa vs. Deputy Commissioner, 2000 (1) Karnataka Law Journal, 523, Maddurappa vs. State of Karnataka, 2006 (4) Karnataka Law Journal, 303 and G. Maregouda vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District, Chitradurga and Ors, 2000(2) Kr. L.J.Sh. N.4B holding that there is no limitation provided by Section 5 of the Act and, therefore, an application can be made at any time, are overruled. Order accordingly.” (Underlines supplied) 12. A reading of the aforesaid decision makes it crystal clear that the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act could be invoked within a reasonable time. In the case on hand, there is unreasonable delay of 31 years in invoking the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act by the LR of the original grantee. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the application filed by the petitioner is beyond limitation was liable to be dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner are unsustainable in law.
13. The learned counsel for respondent further drawn the attention of this Court to Section 4(2) of the Act. Section 4 of the Act reads as follows:
“4. Prohibition of transfer of granted lands.- (1)Notwithstanding anything in any law, agreement, contract or instrument, any transfer of granted land made either before or after the commencement of this Act, in contravention of the terms of the grant of such land or the law providing for such grant, or sub-section (2) shall be null and void and no right, title or interest in such land shall be conveyed or be deemed ever to have conveyed by such transfer.
(2) No person shall, after the commencement of this Act, transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land without the previous permission of the Government.
(3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply also to the sale of any land in execution of a decree or order of a Civil Court or of any award or order of any other authority.”
It is very clear from the reading of Section 4(2) of the Act, that after commencement of the Act no person shall transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land without the previous permission of the Government. In the case on hand, the land was originally granted in the year 1962 and the sale has taken place on 12.08.1968 and on 18.06.1969 before the Act came into force. Therefore, Section 4(2) of the Act is not applicable to the case on hand.
14. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for respondent is that the respondent Nos.3 to 5 are villagers, illiterates, have not aware of the Act coming into force and they filed application immediately on coming to know about the Act. He further submitted that if an opportunity is given to them they will file necessary application for condonation of delay in invoking the provisions of the Act.
15. This Court in WA No. 846/2019 has considered the similar contention raised by the parties and held at para-5 as follows:
“The law on the aspect is very clear. There is no specific limitation prescribed in Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The application has to be filed within a reasonable time. By no stretch of imagination, the application made by the appellants, after a lapse of nearly 32 years from the date on which PTCL Act came into force, can be said to be filed within a reasonable time.”
16. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed.
The orders passed by the respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner dated 16.11.2015 vide Annexure-P and the order passed by the respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner dated 13.11.2017 vide Annexure-R, are hereby quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE VK