IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No.1028 OF 2019 (SC-ST) BETWEEN:
Sri Muniraju, Aged about 55 years, S/o.Late Gullojappa, Resident of Bodarahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District. ... Appellant (By Sri Viswanatha Setty V., Advocate (Absent)) AND:
1. Sri Sheik Hyder, Aged about 71 years, S/o.Ibrahim Sab, R/at Hosapete, Anekal Town, Bengaluru Urban District Pin – 560 091.
2. The Asst. Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division, V.V.Tower, Bengaluru.
3. The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, K.G.Road, Bengaluru – 560 009. ... Respondents (By Sri D.Nagaraj, AGA for R2 and R3) This writ appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High court Act praying to set aside the order dated: 10.10.2018 passed by the Hon’ble learned Single Judge in WP No.38966/2011 by allowing the above writ appeal.
This writ appeal, coming on for orders, this day, H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 challenging the judgment and order dated 10th October 2018, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.38966/2011, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the land bearing Sy.No.593, (Old No.509/1), measuring 2 acres 3 guntas situated at Anekal Village was granted to one A.K.Muniga, the grandfather of the appellant herein. The legal representatives of the grantee have sold that land by a registered sale deed on 3rd October 1985 to the first respondent herein. The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, ‘the PTCL Act’) came into force on 1st January 1979. The appellant herein filed an application for restoration of the land under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, in the year 2006. The Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 20 July 2007 dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved by the same, the legal representative of the original grantee has filed an appeal before the Special Deputy Commissioner. The Special Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 26th August 2011 has allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, the purchaser has filed a writ petition before this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.38966/2011. The learned single Judge by order dated 10th October 2018 has allowed the writ petition on the ground that the Act has come into force on 1st January 1979 and that the application has been filed after a lapse of 20 years, by following the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of VIVEK M.HINDUJA AND OTHERS vs. M.ASHWATHA AND OTHERS1 Being aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed.
3. It is not in dispute that the land has been granted in favour of the original grantee, that is, grandfather of the appellant, in the year 1941. The PTCL Act has come into force on 1st January 1979. The original grantees legal representatives have sold the land on 3rd October 1985 to the first respondent herein. In the year 2006, the respondent has filed an application for 1 Civil Appeal No.2166/2009 dt.6.12.2017 restoration of the land under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. They have initiated the proceedings after 20 years from the date of the sale. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER2 has held that to initiate the proceedings under Section 5 of the PTCL Act has to be initiated within a reasonable time. In the case on hand, the sale has been held in the year 1985 and the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act has been filed in the year 2006. There is a delay of 20 years in invoking the provisions of the PTCL Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that there is a delay in invoking Section 5 of the PTCL Act.
4. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, we are of the opinion that there is no error in the order passed by the 2 2017 SCC Online SC 1862 learned Single Judge.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE Cm/-