IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL Nos.4622-4626 OF 2015 (SC/ST) BETWEEN:
1. SRI. D.V. NARAYANAPPA SON OF LATE DODDAVALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 2. SMT.CHIKKAMUNIYAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS 2(a) SRI.KRISHNAPPA SON OF LATE CHIKKAVALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 2(b) SRI.NARAYANAPPA SON OF LATE CHIKKAVALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 2(c) SRI.THIMMARAYAPPA SON OF LATE CHIKKAVALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 2(d) SRI.MUNIYAPPA SON OF LATE CHIKKAVALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS THE APPELLANTS NO.1 AND 2(a)-(d) ALL ARE RESIDING AT DEVAGANAHALLI VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK-560037 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. R.BHADRINATH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU -560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT K.G.ROAD TALUK OFFICE COMPOUND BENGALURU -560009.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB- DIVISION K.G.ROAD BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560009.
4. SRI.CHANNABASAPPA SON OF LATE THOTADAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 5. SRI.SHIVANNA SON OF LATE THOTADAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESPONDENT Nos.4 AND 5 ARE RESIDING AT BOMMENAHALLI VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560049.
6. SRI.K.MOHAN REDDY SON OF LATE GOPALA REDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS KALLURAPALLI NELLORE MANDAL-524 227 NELLORE DISTRICT ANDRA PRADESH.
7. SRI.V.VENKATAKRISHNA REDDY SON OF VENKATARAMANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS PENT HOUSE VEX PERNDALE APARTMENTS KODIHALLI BENGALURU -560008.
8. SRI.BALACHANDRA REDDY SON OF NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT BOMMENAHALLI VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI-560049 BENGALURU EAST TALUK.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.6 TO 8 SMT. R ANITHA, HCGP. FOR RESPONDENT No.1 AND 2 RESPONDENT No.3 SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 15/03/2019 RESPONDENT Nos. 4 AND 5 ARE SERVED) THESE APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION Nos.34966-34970/2015 DATED 05/10/2015.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 05.10.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.34966-34970 of 2015 whereby the writ petitions are dismissed, the petitioners are in appeal.
2. The petitioners claim that they belonged to Scheduled Caste (Adi-Karnataka) and they are grandchildren of one Muniya. It is stated that the said Muniya was granted 3 acres 1 gunta of land in Sy.No.96, new No.118/1 of Bommenahalli village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Hoskote taluk on 07.09.1928. It is stated that, after the death of the original grantee-Muniya, his sons sold the granted land to respondents No.4 and 5 under registered sale deed dated 26.06.1950 and respondents 4 and 5 in turn sold it to respondents No.6 and 7 under the registered sale deed 17.06.2003.
3. The petitioners initiated proceedings in the year 2010, before the Assistant commissioner for resumption of lands and for restoration to the legal representatives of the original grantee stating that the first sale made in the year 1950 is in violation of non-alienation clause. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the application of the petitioners for resumption by order dated 08.09.2011 holding that there is no violation of non-alienation clause in the absence of any rules. Further the Assistant Commissioner also found that the resumption sought by the petitioners was untenable. The petitioners challenged the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 08.09.2011 before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 27.01.2014 rejected the appeal of the petitioners confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Both orders of the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner were challenged in W.P.No.34966-970 of 2015. The learned Single Judge by order dated 05.10.2015 rejected the petitioners’ writ petitions and aggrieved by the said order, they are before this Court in this appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents 6 to 8 and the learned High Court Government Pleader.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Single Judge committed an error in rejecting the writ petitions holding that there is no violation of non- alienation clause. Further it is contended that the Limitation Act is not applicable to the proceedings under the Act and contends that the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) is a special enactment.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.6 to 8 supports the order of the learned Single Judge and prays for dismissal of the writ appeals.
7. There is no dispute that the lands in question were originally granted to one Muniya on 07.09.1928. It is also not in dispute that the said granted lands were sold by his sons to father of respondents No.4 and 5 on 26.06.1950 and in turn, respondents No.4 and 5 along with their father sold the property to respondents No.6 and 7 under the registered sale deed dated 17.06.2003. Apparently, the petitioners who claim to be grandchildren of Muniya have initiated action under Section 5A of the Act for resumption and restoration in the year 2010. The first sale has taken place on 26.06.1950 which means the action is initiated after more than 60 years for resumption and restoration. Any action for violation of law or the case like this, would have to be initiated within a reasonable time. The petitioners having failed to initiate action within a reasonable time, it is not open for them to seek for restoration after 60 years from the date of first sale. 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 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.”
8. With regard to contention that the Limitation Act would not be applicable and the Act is a special enactment, it is to be noted that the proceedings will have to be initiated within a reasonable time whether Limitation Act applies or whether it is a special enactment.
9. The contention of the appellants that the dismissal of the writ petitions observing that there is no violation of non-alienation clause has been dealt with by the learned Single Judge elaborately relying upon the decision of this Court reported in 2004(3) KCCR 1471 in the case of MARIYAPPA v/s DR.N.THIMMARAYAPPA AND OTHERS. Any restriction for alienation is to be authorized by the Rules and in the absence of any rules, the Government Order relied upon by the petitioners would not assist their case. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that there is no violation of Section 4 of the Act. The petitioners/appellants have failed to demonstrate how the sales are hit by Section 4 of the Act. Both the original authorities i.e., Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner have concurrently held that there is no violation of Section 4 of the Act and the learned Single Judge by his reasoned order has also come to the conclusion that there is no violation of the conditions of grant.
10. No ground is made out to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ appeals are dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms