IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.27939/2009 (SC/ST) Between:
Sri. R. Nataraj S/o. Ramamanikyam, Aged about 50 years, Resident of Alur Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. … Petitioner (By Sri. Narayana Swamy, Advocate) And:
1. The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru.
2. The Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division, Bengaluru.
3. Sri. Bylanjanappa S/o. Pooja Bylappa, Major.
4. Sri. Lakkapa S/o. Pooja Bylappa, Major.
5. Sri. Chikkabyalapa Pooja Bylappa, Major.
6. Sri. Krishnapa S/o. Pooja Bylappa, Major.
7. Sri. Hanumantharayappa S/o. Pooja Bylappa, Major.
8. Sri. Bylahanumaiah, S/o. Pooja Bylappa, Major.
Respondents 3 to 8 are residents of Alur Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. ... Respondents (By Smt. Savithramma, HCGP for R1 and R2; Sri. K. Ravishankar, Advocate for R3; Sri. D.S. Jayaraj, Advocate for R4-R8) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order bearing proceedings dated 28.02.2007 and order dated 10.06.2009 passed by the R1 and R-2 and marked as Annexures-E and F, respectively.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner is stated to be the purchaser of an extent of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.112 of Alur Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk through the sale deed dated 03.01.1986.
2. It is stated that the land measuring an extent of 2 acres in Sy.No.112 was granted on 07.04.1960, though Saguvali Chit came to be issued on 05.06.1967.
3. It is stated that the first sale with respect to the extent that was granted was by sale deed dated 19.06.1967 executed by Sri.Bylappa and Pooja Bylappa in favour of Arasappa and there have been subsequent sale deeds in the meanwhile and by the sale deed dated 03.01.1986 executed by Sri B.M.Nagappa, the petitioner has acquired rights with respect to the said lands.
4. It is stated that the proceedings were initiated before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2006-2007 by the legal representatives of grantee seeking setting aside of the sale deeds, resumption and restoration of land to them. The Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 28.02.2007, has allowed the application declaring that the sale deeds were illegal, as being in violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978.
5. The Assistant Commissioner in his order records a finding that the grantees belong to ‘Adi Karnataka’ community and holds that the sale deeds were executed within the period of non-alienation of 15 years as per the prevalent law and hence, directs resumption and restoration of land to the legal representatives of grantees. The said order was taken up in appeal before the Special Deputy Commissioner, who by his order dated 10.06.2009, has dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner.
6. The petitioner, who is the purchaser has assailed the said orders and apart from advancing various contentions has specifically pleaded that the proceedings were sought to be initiated before the Assistant Commissioner after a period of 38 years from the date of first sale. Hence, taking note of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Vivek M. Hinduja and Others v. M. Ashwatha and Others reported in 2018 (1) Kar.L.R 176 (SC) and taking note of other judgments of the Apex Court, the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner itself is to be treated as bad in law, as the legal representatives of the grantees had approached the Assistant Commissioner after an unreasonable delay and such action on behalf of the grantees ought not to have been entertained by the Assistant Commissioner.
7. It is further contended that the land was granted under the ‘Grow More Food Scheme’ and hence was outside the purview of the Act. Hence, it is contended that the orders of Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are liable to be set-aside.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader representing the respondent - State.
9. Facts are not in dispute that the land was granted on 07.04.1960 and Saguvali Chit was issued on 05.06.1967. The relevant Rule prevailing as on the date of issuance of Saguvali Chit is stated to provide the period of non-alienation of 15 years.
10. Admittedly, the sale deed having executed on 19.06.1967, that is, within the non-alienation period that was provided for by the applicable Rule, the right to move the proceedings accrued to the grantees immediately thereafter and hence, the grantees and those claiming through the grantee ought to have initiated proceedings within a reasonable time after the first sale dated 19.06.1967.
11. Though there is an observation regarding change of spot to the effect that grantee was in possession and enjoyment of the property in Sy.No.111, though what had been granted was Sy.No.112, this change of spot has been noticed and regularized by the Revenue Authorities and the said fact is not in dispute. It is the Revenue Authorities who have re-assigned Sy.No.111 to the land that was granted originally in Sy.No.112.
12. Nevertheless, noting that the Assistant Commissioner was approached beyond the period of 38 years from the date of the first sale, clearly the delayed approach of those claiming through the grantees before the Assistant Commissioner is beyond a reasonable period of time and in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Vivek Hinduja’s case (supra) and in the case of Nekkanti Ramalakshmi v. State Of Karnataka reported in Civil Appeal No.1390 of 2009, it is clear that approaching the statutory authority after an undue delay would operate as a bar and the Assistant Commissioner ought not have entertained the application on behalf of the grantees. The law laid down by the Apex Court reiterates the settled principle that the action by statutory Authorities must be initiated within a reasonable period of time.
13. Taking note of the said principle and in light of the admitted facts, it is clear that the claim on behalf of grantees would not have been entertained by the Assistant Commissioner.
14. Accordingly, in light of the settled principle of law stating that the power should be exercised within a reasonable period of time and that the grantees having approached the Authority after an unreasonable period of time, such claims are not liable to be considered.
15. Accordingly, the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 28.02.2007 at Annexure-E and the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 10.06.2009 at Annexure-F are set-aside.
The petition is allowed, subject to the above observations.
SJK Sd/- JUDGE