IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD W.P.No. 47849 OF 2018(SC-ST) BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Bheemegowda S/o Late.Thimmegowda Aged about 80 years R/at, Ganigara Hosalli Village Shanthigrama Hobli Hassan Taluk Hassan District-573234.
2. Sri. Hanumanthegowda (since dead Rep. by his LR’s.
2(a) Dyavamma W/o Late. Hanumanthegowda Aged about 70 years 2(b) Kumara S/o Late. Hanumanthegowda Aged about 50 years 2(c) Puttegowda S/o Late. Hanumanthegowda Aged about 48 years 2(d) Kamala D/o Late. Hanumanthegowda Aged about 46 years R/at Canara Bank Road Kattaya Hobli Gorur, Hassan Taluk Hassan District-573234.
2(e) Vasantha Raj S/o Late. Hanumanthegowda Aged about 44 years R/at No. 128, 5th Cross 2nd Main Road, Near St.Maries School Devannanapalya Dasanpura, Bengaluru-561023.
Petitioner Nos.2(a) to 2(c) Are R/at. Ganigarahosahalli Village Shanthigrama Hobli Hassan Taluk Hassan District-573234.
3. Sri. Devarajegowda S/o Late. Thimmegowda Aged about 75 years R/at. Ganigara Hosahalli Village Shanthigrama Hobli Hassan Taluk Hassan District-573234. … Petitioners (By Sri.Pratheep K.C. Advocate) AND:
1. The Deputy Commissioner Hassan District Hassan-573201.
2. The Assistant Commissioner Hassan Sub-Division Hassan District Hassan-573201.
3. Smt. Kempamma D/o Sanna @ Sannaiah W/o Arasaiah Major 4. Smt. Lalithamma D/o Sanna @ Sannaiah Major 5. Smt. Nagamma D/o Sanna @ Sannaiah Major 6. Smt. Giddamma D/o Sanna @ Sannaiah Major.
Respondents No.3 to 6 Are Residing at Ganigarahosalli Village Shanthigrama Hobli Hassan Taluk Hassan District-573234. ... Respondents (By Smt. Savithramma, HCGP. For R1 & R2: Sri. K.V. Narasimhan, Advocate for R3 to R6) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated: 10.10.2014 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-E and quash the impugned order dated: 14.08.2018 in case No. PTCL 11/2014-15 Passed by respondent No.1 at Annexure-F.
This writ petition, coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER This writ petition is preferred challenging the order dated 10.10.2014 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the order dated 14.08.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexures E and F respectively.
2. The land bearing Sy.No.42/1 measuring 23 guntas and Sy.No.52 (Old No.44/4) measuring 3 acres 30 guntas situated at Ganigara Hosahalli Village, Shanthigrama Hobli, Hassan Taluk and District was originally granted to Sannamari @ Chikka, who is the grandfather of respondent Nos. 3 to 6. The legal heirs of the original grantee sold the property in Sy.No.42/1 measuring 23 guntas and in Sy.No.52 measuring about 2 acres in favour of Thimmegowda on 14.09.1954. They have sold the remaining property in Sy.No.52 measuring 1 acre 30 guntas in favour of Thimmegowda on 21.07.1964.
3. 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 respondent Nos. 3 to 6 have filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner for restoration of the land under Section 5 of the PTCL Act on 06.12.2013. The Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 10.10.2014 (Annexure-E) allowed the said application and restored the land in their favour. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 14.08.2018 (Annexure-F) has confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.
4. Sri K.C.Pratheep, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the PTCL Act came into force from 01.01.1979 and the application for restoration of the lands has been filed on 06.12.2013 which is almost after a lapse of 49 years. 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, since there is a delay in invoking the provisions under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, he seeks for allowing the writ petition.
6. Per contra, Sri K.V.Narasimhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 submitted that the respondents were not aware that they have to invoke the provisions within a reasonable time. Therefore, if the matter is remanded back, they can file an application explaining the delay and the authorities may be directed to reconsider their application for condonation of delay.
7. Smt.Savithramma, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 supported the orders passed by the authorities.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers.
9. It is not in dispute that the land has been originally granted in favour of grandfather of respondent Nos. 3 to 6 and it is also not in dispute that the aforesaid land was sold in favour of father of the petitioner by registered sale deeds dated 14.09.1954 and 21.07.1964. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. Section 5 of the PTCL Act provides for resumption and restitution of the granted lands. The respondents have filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act on 06.12.2013. There is a delay of 33 years in invoking the provisions of Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI (supra) has held that the provisions of Section 5 of the PTCL Act has to be invoked within a reasonable time. In this case there is a delay of 33 years. Therefore, the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are unsustainable and liable to be rejected.
10. In respect of the contention raised by the respondents regarding the delay, a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.846/2019 disposed of on 19th June 2019 has considered the similar contentions raised by the appellant and has answered the same as hereinbelow:
“ 5. 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.
6. As law of limitation is not applicable, there is no question of allowing the filing of the application for condonation of delay. The learned Single Judge has found that there is no explanation for such a long delay of 32 years from the date on which the PTCL Act came into force. There is no reason to find fault with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while exercising equitable and discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
11. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 10.10.2014 (Annexure-E) and the Deputy Commissioner dated 14.08.2018 (Annexure-F) are quashed.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Cm/-