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.50370 OF 2018(SC-ST) BETWEEN:
Sri.K.N.Krishna Reddy S/o Late Nanjappa Reddy Aged about 73 years R/at No.41/9, 13th Cross 6th ‘D’ Main HAL 2nd Stage Bengaluru-560 038. … Petitioner (By Sri.Subramanya R., Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka Department of Revenue Vidhana Soudha Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi Bengaluru-560 001 Represented by its Principal Secretary 2. Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru Urban District Bengaluru-560 001.
3. Assistant Commissioner Bengaluru Sub-Division Bengaluru-560 001.
4. Sri. Chowdamuniyappa S/o Late. Sonnappa Aged about 72 years 5. Sri.Byrappa S/o Chowdamuniyappa Aged about 49 years Respondents No.4 &5 are R/at Chikkagubbi Bidarahalli Hobli Bengaluru East Taluk-560 049.
6. Smt. Gowramma W/o Late. Muniswamy Reddy Major 7. Sri. Narayana Reddy S/o Late. Dodda Muniswamy Reddy Major 8. Smt. Meenakshamma D/o Late. Dodd Muniswamy Reddy Major 9. Sri. Vasudeva Reddy S/o Late. Dodda Muniswamy Reddy Major 10. Sri. Kodandarama Reddy S/o Late. Dodda Muniswamy Reddy Major 11. Sri.Somashekhara Reddy S/o Late. Dodda Muniswamy Reddy Major 12. Sri. Guru Reddy S/o Late. Dodda Muniswamy Reddy Major 13. Smt. Manjula D/o Late. Dodda Muniswamy Reddy Major 14. Smt. Kanthamma D/o Late. Dodda Muniswamy Reddy Major Respondents No.6 to 14 are all R/at Maragondanahalli Bidarahalli Hobli Thambuchetty Palya Bengaluru East Taluk-560 036.
15. Smt. Akkayyamma W/o Late. Srinivasa Reddy Major 16. Sri.Chandra Shekhara Reddy S/o Late. Srinivasa Reddy Major 17. Sri.Ramesh Reddy S/o Late. Srinivasa Reddy Major 18. Sri.Nagaraja Reddy S/o Late. Srinivasa Reddy Major 19. Sri.Surendra Reddy S/o Late. Srinivasa Reddy Major Respondents No.15 to 19 all are R/at Chellakere Village Ring Road Kalyan Nagar Post Bengaluru-560 043.
20. Smt. H.Kavitha W/o H.D.Balakrishnegowda R/at No.12, 80 Feet Road Padmanabha Nagar Bengaluru-560 070. ... Respondents (By Smt. Savithramma, HCGP for R1 to R3: Smt.Swamini G.M., Advocate for R20:
Notice to R6 to R10, R13 to R15, R17 & R18 is dispensed with Vide order dated: 31.01.2019:
R5, R11, R12, R16, R19 are served) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District dated: 06.06.2018 (produced as Annexure-A).
This writ petition, coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the second respondent Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District, dated 06.06.2018 vide Annexure-A.
2. The land bearing Sy.No.98 (new No.98/1) measuring 2 acres situated at Chikkagubbi Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru District was originally granted in favour of Sonappa on 30.04.1969. He sold the said land to Dodda Muniswamy Reddy on 28.09.1970, who in turn sold it to one Smt.Akkayyamma (1 acre) and Smt.Kavitha (1 acre). Afterwards, Smt.Akkayyamma inturn sold 1 acre of land to Smt.Kavitha and Smt.Kavitha in turn sold the 2 acres of land in favour of the petitioner by a registered sale deed dated 25.08.2006.
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 fourth respondent herein who is the legal representative of the original grantee filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner for restoration of the land under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 01.04.2013 dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved by the same, the legal representative of the original grantee has filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 06.06.2018 (Annexure-A) has allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
4. Sri R.Subramanya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the land has been granted in favour of the original grantee on 30.04.1969 and there has been four sale transactions. Finally, the petitioner purchased the said land on 25.08.2006. He submitted that the PTCL Act came into force on 1st January 1979. The application for restoration of the land has been filed after a delay of 30 years. But, the Deputy Commissioner, without considering this aspect of the matter has allowed the appeal. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.
5. The fourth respondent, who is the legal representative of the original allottee has been served and unrepresented.
6. Smt.Savithramma, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 supported the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers.
8. It is not in dispute that the land has been originally granted in favour of Sonappa on 30.04.1969 and there has been four sale transactions. First sale has taken place on 28.09.1970. Finally, the petitioner purchased the said land on 25.08.2006. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The legal representative of the original grantee has filed an application in the year 2010 under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. There is a delay of more than 30 years in invoking the provisions of the PTCL Act. 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 has held as hereunder:
“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.”
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above judgment held that Section 5 of the said Act has to be invoked within a reasonable time. In this case there is a delay of more than 30 years in invoking Section 5 of the PTCL Act. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI (supra) the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is unsustainable.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure-A dated 06.06.2018 passed by the Deputy Commoner is set aside.
Sd/- JUDGE Cm/-