Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 1607
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.NATARAJAN, J.
Sri Karappan Gownder S/o Late Veerappa Gownder – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka Represented By Its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department - Respondents
Writ Petition No.13628 of 2018(SC/ST)
Decided on : 08-11-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI A.G. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SMT SAVITHRAMMA, SRI UMASHANKAR L, ADVOCATE
Headnote:
PTCL Act - Section 5(1) - Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1978 - Section 5 - Violation of land grant order – Condo nation of delay - Whether Statute provided for a period of limitation provisions of Statute must be invoked within a reasonable time - Whether on an application of parties or suo motu must be taken within a reasonable time - Case of petitioners is that respondent No.4 legal heir of original grantee filed an application under Section 5(1) of PTCL Act before Assistant Commissioner for restoration of land measuring acres situated at Mysore District which was granted to his father vide land grant order - It is further alleged that his father sold a portion of granted land measuring acres in favor grandmother of respondent Nos.5 and 6 – Subsequently remaining portion of land was sold by his father in favor father of respondent Nos.7 to 11 - Subsequently those two purchasers said to have sold said land to petitioners - In view of commencement of PTCL Act with effect Assistant Commissioner after hearing arguments dismissed application by order holding that purchasers have perfected their title by way of adverse possession – Held, Hon’ble Apex Court in case has taken a similar view that if there is inordinate delay of years in filing application restoration cannot be sustained - Hon’ble Apex Court in case has taken a similar view holding that though PTCL Act provide for limitation or prescribes limitation but parties are to approach competent court within time beyond which no relief can be granted - Hon’ble Apex Court also held that this principle would apply even for taking suo-motu action - Based upon judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court a Division Bench of this Court in WA in case Special Deputy Commissioner and others has upheld order of learned Single Judge of this Court for setting aside order of restoration on ground of delay wherein writ petition filed by grantee came to be dismissed which was upheld by Division Bench in case stated supra - In view of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court and Division Bench of this Court stated supra on considering case on hand first sale has been effected and second sale effected - There is years delay in filing restoration application - PTCL Act came into force in with effect - Restoration application filed by legal heir of grantee is in the year i.e. almost thirty years after date of commencement of PTCL Act – However though learned counsel for respondent No.4 is able to show that father of respondent No.4 original grantee filed an application for restoration itself but said application came to be dismissed - Father of respondent No.4 ought to have challenged order of rejection and endorsement made by Assistant Commissioner by filing appeal before Deputy Commissioner or he could have filed writ petition before this Court challenging order since under Section 5 of PTCL Act Assistant Commissioner suo motu can take proceedings or on application filed by grantee for purpose of restoration - Though Assistant Commissioner committed error in rejecting application of original grantee itself but same was not at all challenged by grantee - Even legal heir of grantee has not chosen to file application for almost twenty-six years - Legal heir has kept quiet without challenging order of dismissal – Therefore in court considered opinion there is inordinate delay in filing restoration application by legal heir of original grantee – Therefore order passed by Deputy Commissioner restoring land in favor of legal heir of original grantee is not sustainable in view of delay and laches - Petition is allowed
ORDER :
This petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 06.03.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District, vide AnnexureA whereby, the Deputy Commissioner allowed the application filed by respondent No.4 before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (‘PTCL Act’ for short).
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.4 as well as learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to R.3.
3. The case of the petitioners is that respondent No.4, legal heir of the original grantee filed an application under Section 5(1) of the PTCL Act before the Assistant Commissioner, Hunsur, for restoration of the land in Sy.No.52/12 (new Sy.No.360) measuring 4 acres situated at H.D.Kote, Mysore District, which was granted to his father vide land grant order dated 13.06.1953. It is further alleged that his father sold a portion of the granted land measuring 2 acres on 27.04.1964 in favour Thimmamma, the grandmother of respondent Nos.5 and 6. Subsequently, the remaining portion of the land was sold by his father on 24.04.1967 in favour of Mohammed Hussain, the father of respondent Nos.7 to 11. Subsequently, those two purchasers said to have sold the said the land to the petitioners on 30.05.1986 and 03.01.1990. In view of the commencement of PTCL Act with effect from 01.01.1979, the Assistant Commissioner after hearing the arguments dismissed the application by order dated 14.12.2011 holding that the purchasers have perfected their title by way of adverse possession. Assailing the order of the Assistant Commissioner, respondent No.4, the legal heir of the grantee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. After considering the arguments, the Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal and restored the land in question by nullifying the sale deeds of the petitioners as hit by Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act vide judgment dated 06.03.2018. Assailing the same, the petitioners are before this Court by way of this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously argued only on the point of delay and laches on the part of the legal heir of the grantee in filing the restoration application. Though the petitioners urged various grounds in the writ petition, but learned counsel for the petitioners restricted his arguments only on the point of delay. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that though the land was granted on 13.06.1953, the first sale has been effected by the original grantee in the year 1964 and second sale in the year 1967. Thereafter, another sale deed was effected in the year 1972 and then the final sale took place where by the petitioners purchased the land on 30.05.1986 and 03.01.1990, but the Act came into force on 01.01.1979. There is inordinate delay of 45 years in filing the restoration application by the legal heir of the original grantee from the date of the first sale and 30 years from the date of commencement of the Act. Therefore, the order passed by the Deputy commissioner is not sustainable in law in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as judgment of this Court in a catena of decisions. He also placed reliance on the following judgments:
(i) Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and another 2018(1) Kar. L.R 5 (SC);
(ii) Chhedi Lal Yadav and others vs. Hari Kishore Yadav (D) Thr. LRs and others. 2018 (1) Kar. L.R 1 (SC);
(iii) Vivek M. Hinduja and others vs. M. Ashwatha and others. 2018 (1) Kar. L.R 176(SC);
(iv) Sri S.M. Rajagopal vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District & others. 2018 (2) Kar. L.R 58.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4, the legal heir of the original grantee, strenuously contended that the first sale was effected in the year 1964. The second sale was in the year 1967, but the land grant was made in the year 1953. There was a complete ban for
