Back
2014 Supreme(Kar) 801
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
N.K. PATIL AND B. SREENIVASE GOWDA, JJ.
Bhyraiah - Appellant
Vs.
Bettegowda and others – Respondents
W.A.No.6498 OF 2012 (SC/ST) Between:
Decided On : 10-9-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri. N.S. Bhat, Advocate
For the Respondent:Smt. Anusha Asundi, for Sri. A. Madhusudhana Rao, Advocate for R1(a) to R1(d); Sri. Laxminarayana, AGA for R2 & R3
The appellant must establish legal heirship and entitlement to restoration of land under the SC and ST (PTCL) Act, and must provide a satisfactory explanation for any delay in legal proceedings.
Headnote:
Limitation Act - Land Dispute - Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act - Section 5 of Limitation Act, Section 151 of CPC - SC and ST (PTCL) Act - [Section 5 of Limitation Act, Section 151 of CPC, SC and ST (PTCL) Act]
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought restoration of land granted to his ancestor under the SC and ST (PTCL) Act. The Assistant Commissioner declared the sale transaction as null and void but declined to restore the land to the appellant, requiring him to obtain a decree from a Civil Court proving his legal heirship. The appellant's writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution, and his applications for recalling the order were also dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in filing the recalling application was not satisfactorily explained and upheld the dismissal of the applications. On the merits, the court held that the appellant failed to establish his legal heirship and entitlement to restoration of the land.
Issues: Delay in filing recalling application, Legal heirship and entitlement to restoration of land
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the dismissal of the applications due to unsatisfactory explanation for the delay. On the merits, the court found that the appellant failed to establish his legal heirship and entitlement to restoration of the land.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit.
Although this appeal was listed in the orders list, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, it was taken up for final disposal.
Appellant, aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 14th February 2012 passed on I.A.Nos. 1 and 2 of 2012 filed in W.P.No.536 of 2006 (SCST) has preferred this writ appeal. By the said order the learned Single Judge has dismissed I.A.No.1/2012 filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act and I.A.No.2/2012 filed under Section 151 of CPC.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned in the appeal.
3. Facts leading to this appeal are stated as under:
An extent of 5 Acres 15 Guntas of land in Sy.No.20 of Karisiddanahalli village, renumbered as Sy.Nos.40/P1 and 40/P2, measuring 2 Acres 35 Guntas and 2 Acres 30 Guntas, respectively, hereinafter referred to as ‘land in question’ was granted to one Kariyaiah, S/o. Hanumaiah, herein after referred to as ‘Grantee’ by the Assistant Commissioner as per the order of Grant No.SDR/65/5657 dated 30th March 1957, with a condition of nonalienation for a period of 15 years. The Grantee died as issueless. After his death, one Siddaiah and his son Bhyraiah, the appellant herein claiming to be the legal heirs of the Grantee had sold the land in favour of Bettegowda on 1st December 1984 in violation of the terms of grant. Therefore, the appellant made an application before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, hereinafter referred to as “SC and ST (PTCL) Act”, for restoration of the land in question in his favour. The Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 20th March 2000, allowed the application and declared the sale transaction as null and void but declined to order for restoration of the land in favour of the appellant, on the ground that he has failed to establish that he is the legal heir of the Grantee and with a liberty to move for restoration of the land in his favour after obtaining a necessary declaration from a competent Civil Court to the effect that he is the legal heir of the original grantee and entitled for restoration of land in his favour. The appellant, aggrieved by the said order of the Assistant Commissioner, challenged the same by preferring an appeal in No. PTL 02/2000-01 before the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamagalur. The Deputy Commissioner by order dated 16th January 2001 allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in so far as declining to restore the land in favour of the appellant and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner, Chikmagalur, with a direction to hold enquiry as to the legal heir ship of the Grantee by affording an opportunity to the appellant.
4. On remand, the Assistant Commissioner by registering the proceeding as PTCL: 8/2003-04 on his file and after holding enquiry, by order dated 30.6.2004, again declined to order for restoration of the land in favour of the applicant, on the ground that, he has failed to establish that he is the legal heir of the original grantee and ordered for effecting mutation in the name of Government. The appellant, again aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 30.6.2004, challenged the same by preferring an appeal in PTL 7/2004-05 before the Deputy Commissioner, Chikmagalur, who by order dated 28th February 2005, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved by the said orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, the appellant has challenged the same by preferring Writ Petition in W.P.No.536 of 2006 before this Court and the said writ petition came to be dismissed on 22nd July 2008 for non-prosecution. Hence, the appellant filed two applications in I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2012. I.A.No.2/2012 under Section 151 of CPC read with Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
