IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD W.P.No.47423 OF 2017(SC-ST) BETWEEN:
Sri.M.Srinivasa S/o Late. Sri.Marappa.T, Aged about 46 years, Residing at Madagalamba Temple Street, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Colony, Ward No.21, Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru-562 110.
(By Sri. Mohan.S, Advocate) AND:
1. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District, Podium Block, Visveswaraiah Tower, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Veedi, Bengaluru-560 001.
2. The Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura Sub-Division, Mini Vidhana Soudha Building, Doddaballapura, Doddaballapura Town, Doddaballpura-561203.
… Petitioner 3. Smt. M.C.Vasundaramma, W/o Sri. Chikkaveerabhadrappa, Aged about 73 years, Residing at Ward No.22, Boodigere Road, Devanahalli Town, Bengaluru Rural District-562110.
4. Sri.Gopala Sreenivasan, S/o Late. Sri.T.S.Sreenivasan, Aged about 59 years, Residing at Adiyar Club Gate Road, Chennai-28, Represented by his GPA holder, Sri.T.A.Prasanna, S/o Late. Sri.T.A.T.Chari, Aged about 60 years, Residing at No.33, 1st Main Road, CIT Colony, Mylapore, Chennai-4.
... Respondents (By Smt.Savithramma, HCGP. for R1 & R2: Sri.S.Srinivasa Murthy, Advocate for C/R4: R3 served.) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated:21.08.2017 passed on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru vide Annexure-J and etc.
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 dated 21.08.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner – respondent No.1 herein vide Annexure-J.
2. The brief case of the petitioner is that the land bearing Sy.No.3/8 measuring 2 acres situated at Palya Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District was originally granted in favour of one Muniyappa in public auction on 19.02.1973. The said Muniyappa in turn sold the said property to Smt.Shanthamma, by a registered sale deed dated 18.05.1973 who in turn sold the property to M.C.Bhanuprakash through a registered sale deed dated 26.12.1974. The said Bhanuprakash executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of M.C.Vasundaramma. The said Vasundaramma sold that property in favour of respondent No.4 herein by a registered sale deed dated 16.09.2005. From the date of purchase, the fourth respondent is in possession of the property in dispute.
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. After the Act came into force, the persons claiming to be the legal heirs of the original grantee have filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act before the Assistant Commissioner on 21.01.2014 for resumption of the granted land in their favour. The Assistant commissioner, by order dated 14.09.2016 has allowed the application filed by the petitioner herein. Being aggrieved by the same, the fourth respondent has filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner and taken a contention that the application filed by the petitioner itself is not maintainable. Further, they have taken a contention that the application itself is filed beyond limitation. On consideration of the submissions of the parties, the Deputy Commissioner has allowed the appeal filed by the fourth respondent herein by order dated 21.08.2017. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Sri S.Mohan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the land bearing Sy.No.3/8 measuring 2 acres was granted in favour of one Muniyappa. The original grantee has sold that land in favour of one Shantamma … by a registered sale deed on 18.05.1973. The above said sale has taken place contrary to the provisions of the Land Grant Rules. At the time the land has been granted, a condition of non- alienation for a period of 15 years was there. Hence, the Assistant Commissioner has rightly allowed the application. The Deputy Commissioner, contrary to the provisions of the Land Grant Rules has dismissed the appeal. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.
5. Per contra, Sri S.Srinivasa Murthy, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent has contended that the land in dispute is not a granted land. But one Sri Muniyappa acquired this land by public auction by paying Rs.257.75. Hence, the PTCL Act itself is not applicable. Secondly, he has contended that petitioner before this Court is not the legal representative of the original grantee. Thirdly, he has contended that even assuming that it is the granted land, the application for restoration of the granted land has been filed on 21.01.2014. There is a delay of 34 years in invoking the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Smt.Savitramma, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the State submitted that the land was granted in the year 1973. As on the date of the grant, as per the Rules condition of non-alienation prevails for 15 years. The sale has taken place within 15 years. Hence, there is a violation of condition. Hence, she submits that the Assistant Commissioner has rightly passed an order restoring the land in favour of the original grantee.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers.
8. The land bearing No.3/8, measuring 2 acres situated at Palya Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District was originally granted in favour of one Muniyappa by public auction on payment of Rs.257.75. The said Muniyappa sold the said land in favour of Smt.Shantamma on 18.05.1973. The said Shantamma in turn has sold the said property in favour of one M.C.Bhanuprakash on 26.01.1974. The said Bhanuprakash executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of Smt.M.C.Vasundaramma, who in turn sold the property in favour of the fourth respondent by a registered sale deed dated 16.09.2005. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The application for resumption of the granted land under Sections 4 and 5 has been filed by the petitioner on 21.01.2014. There is a delay of 34 years in filing the application for restoration of the land. The Apex Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in 2017 SCC Online SC 1862 held that to invoke the provisions under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act application has to be filed within a reasonable time. In the case on hand, the land was originally granted on 19.02.1973 the first sale has taken place on 18.05.1973. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The application for resumption of granted land has been filed on 21.01.2014. There is unreasonable delay of more than 34 years in invoking the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI (supra), the Deputy Commissioner has rightly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No.4.
9. In respect of the other contentions raised by the fourth respondent regarding petitioners are not legal representatives of the original grantees and the land is not a granted land, without expressing any opinion on that point, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Cm/-