IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT APPEAL Nos.6423 - 26 OF 2017 (SC / ST) BETWEEN:
1 . SRI. MANJUNATH SON OF LATE MUNISWAMY @ MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT DODDAKANNELLI VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI - 560 037, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU URAN DISTRICT.
2 . SRI OBALAPPA SON OF LATE MUNISWAMY @ MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT DODDAKANNELLI VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI – 560 037.
BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU URAN DISTRICT.
3 . SMT SUNANDAMMA DAUGHTER OF LATE MUNISWAMY @ MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT DODDAKANNELLI VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI – 560 037 BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU URAN DISTRICT.
4 . SMT RATHNAMMA DAUGHTER OF LATE MUNISWAMY @ MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT DODDAKANNELLI VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI – 560 037.
BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU URAN DISTRICT.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. A. NAGARAJA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT K G ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009.
3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH – SUB – DIVISION, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, K G ROAD, KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU – 560 009.
4 . SMT JOYCE A. KOSHY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, WIFE OF SURESH A KOSHY, RESIDING AT NO.33/16, LALJINAGARA MAIN ROAD, ADUGODI POST, BENGALURU – 560 030.
REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER SRI. P. DAMODHARAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, SON OF LATE PERUMALASAMY, RESIDING AT NO.5/7, 15TH CROSS, LAKKASANDRA, BENGALURU – 560 030.
5 . SMT N VANITHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF NANJUNDA REDDY RESIDING AT DODDAKANNELLI VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
6 . SRI. AMPOTTY BENJAMIN S/O LATE D BENJAMIN AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.10, JAYA VILLA, 1ST MAIN, 3RD CROSS, EJIPURA VIVEKNAGAR POST, BENGALURU – 560 047.
7 . SMT SAJI A BENJAMIN WIFE OF AMPOTTY BENJAMIN AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.10, JAYA VILLA, 1ST MAIN, 3RD CROSS, EJIPURA VIVEKNAGAR POST, BENGALURU – 560 047.
8 . SRI. SABU KOSHY SON OF LATE A K KOSHY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.10, JAYA VILLA 1ST MAIN, 3RD CROSS, EJIPURA VIVEKNAGAR POST BENGALURU – 560 047.
9 . SMT NEELAMMA C T WIFE OF LATE C C THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.347/11, 7TH A CROSS, ERA ROAD, EJIPURA, BENGALURU – 560 047.
10 . SMT LEELAMMA THOMAS WFE OF GEORGE THOMAS AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT REJOICE BHANVAN GANGAMMA LAYOUT, OLD MANGAMMANAPALYA ROAD, BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 068.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT FOR RESPONDENT NO. 1TO 3) THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 9.10.2007 IN WRIT PETITION Nos.45206 TO 45209 OF 2017 PASSSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND ETC.
THESE WRIT APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 27.11.2019 COMING ON THIS DAY, M.NAGAPRASANNA J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 9th October 2017 passed in Writ Petition Nos.45206-45209 of 2017 by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions, the writ petitioners have filed the instant appeals.
2. Brief facts that are necessary for consideration of the present appeals are as follows:
The mother of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 viz., Muniyamma was granted land measuring 20 guntas in Sy.No.8 at Doddakamanahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, in terms of the grant order dated 2.09.1978. A saguvali chit was also claimed to have been issued in favour of the mother of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 subsequently. On 20th March 1992 after the death of the original grantee, the legal heirs, namely petitioner Nos.1 and 2 came in possession of the land.
3. On 26.06.1995, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 executed a sale deed selling the granted land in favour of one Smt. Vanitha D/o Nanjunda Reddy. Subsequently, the property has changed hands by further sales. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2, for the first time, in the year 2006-07, initiated proceedings before the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner for resumption of land in their favour on the ground that the sale made on 26.06.1995 was contrary to and in violation of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter refer to as ‘the Act’). The Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 19.09.2008 allowed the claim of the petitioners and restored the land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee by declaring that the land sold on 26.06.1995 was null and void as it was in violation of Section 4(2) of the Act inasmuch permission was not sought before registering the sale deed. Pursuant to the order of the Assistant Commissioner, it is the case of the petitioners that revenue entries were made in their favour. This order of the Assistant Commissioner was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner in 2010 by the subsequent purchaser of the property who was not a party before the Assistant Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 5.02.2014, allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, on the ground that petitioners before him were not arrayed as party respondents before the Assistant Commissioner. This order of the Deputy Commissioner was challenged by the petitioners in the writ petitions. After hearing, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petitions on the ground that the writ petitions are preferred after three years and eight months of passing of the order by the Deputy Commissioner. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioners have preferred the instant writ appeals.
4. We have heard Sri A. Nagaraja Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Kiran Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
5. The contention of the petitioners is that the sale deed they had executed on 26.06.1995 was after coming into force of the Act and in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, if the sale had taken place without prior permission of Government, it would render the sale void. It is their further contention that the finding of the learned Single Judge who has dismissed the writ petitions on the ground of delay is erroneous and unsustainable.
6. The original grant which was in favour of the mother of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 was on 2.09.1978. The land was sold by petitioner Nos.1 and 2 on 26.06.1995 by way of a registered sale deed and subsequently, the ownership of the land has changed hands due to further sales. It is for the first time after having sold the land on 26.06.1995, the petitioners initiated proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2006 i.e., 11 years after the sale. The Assistant Commissioner having allowed the claim directed restoration of land in favour of the petitioners and the Deputy Commissioner on appeal, by his order dated 5.02.2014, set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Though the order of the Deputy Commissioner was passed on 5.02.2014, the writ petitions were filed by the petitioners only on 3.10.2017, there has been a delay of 3 years and 8 months in preferring the writ petitions.
7. The learned Single Judge took note of the fact that the petitioners could not have taken 3 years and 8 months to come to know about the order of the Deputy Commissioner, they having been represented by a counsel before the Deputy Commissioner when the matter was pending and when the order was pronounced by the Deputy Commissioner which was well within the knowledge of the parties through their learned counsel. The learned Single Judge also noticed the fact that the respondents in these appeals, who were the respondents in the writ petitions, had purchased the land, sites had been formed therein way back in the year 1995 and the land in question was within the limits of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and the parties having altered their position, any order that would be passed after a lapse of such a long period of time would be to their detriment due to sheer passage of time. The reasons assigned in the instant writ appeals for delay in approaching the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions as was contended in the writ petitions are not satisfactory and convincing as the petitioners who were parties to the sale in the year 1995, initiated proceedings after 11 years and again being parties before the Deputy Commissioner have chosen to file the writ petitions only after 3 years and 8 months.
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER, reported in 2017 SCC Online 1862, by relying on the earlier judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even though the Act does not prescribe any period before which an application could be made, the same requires to be done within a just and reasonable manner. Therefore, it was held that an application for restoration of land made after an unreasonably long period of time is liable to be dismissed on that ground. Consequently, the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of (i) R. RUDRAPPA VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, reported in 2000 (1) Kr.L.J. 523, (ii) MADDURAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, reported in 2006 (4) Kr.L.J., 303 and (iii) G.MAREGOUDA VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA AND OTHERS, reported in 2000(2) Kr.L.J.Sh.N.4B, holding that since there is no limitation provided under Section-5 of the Act and, therefore, an application can be made at any time, were overruled. In the facts of case therein, there was a delay of almost 24 years in initiating the proceedings. The aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is applicable on all fours to the facts of this case, which would vitiate the proceedings.
9. In the instant case, there is a delay of almost 11 years in approaching the Assistant Commissioner and the delay of 3 years and 8 months in approaching this Court challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, the appeal would fail only on the ground of delay and laches.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SATYAN v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No.2975-2983 of 2019 decided on 30th April 2019) wherein the Apex Court considering the plea that sale of land contrary to Section 4(2) of the Act would make the sale null and void. But, the delay that is considered on the facts before the Apex Court is of 8 years and in juxta position the delay in the present case is 11 years at the initial stage when the appellants initiated proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner and about 4 years after the order of the Deputy Commissioner. With this inordinate delay, it would be unjust to unsettle, settled rights of the parties who have come in possession of the land and having altered their position accordingly, that too at the instance of the petitioners who were not diligent in agitating their rights within a reasonable time. In our view, the learned Single Judge has committed no error which would warrant interference in these appeals.
For the aforementioned reasons, these writ appeals are dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Cs Ct-Mj