Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 230
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
H.T. Narendra Prasad, J.
Raju M. - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner And Others - Respondents
W.P. No.17105 of 2012 (SC-ST)
Decided On : 03-01-2020
Sri. S.V. Prakash, Advocate, for the Appellant; Smt. Savithramma, HCGP, for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2
The main legal point established in the judgment is that applications for restoration of granted land under the PTCL Act must be filed within a reasonable time, and unreasonable delay in filing the application renders it not maintainable.
Headnote:
PTCL Act - Restoration of Granted Land - Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 - The court held that the application for restoration of the land under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act has to be filed within a reasonable time. The application was filed after 15 years from the date the PTCL Act came into force, and there is unreasonable delay in filing the application.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the restoration of land in favor of the legal representative of the original grantee under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. The land was originally granted to the grandfather of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who sold a portion of the land to the grandmother of the petitioner. The legal representative of the original grantee filed an application for restoration of the granted land after a delay of 15 years from the date the PTCL Act came into force.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application for restoration of the land was not maintainable due to the unreasonable delay in filing the application, as per the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court and the Division Bench of the Court.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the application for restoration of the granted land under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act, considering the delay in filing the application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the application for restoration of the land under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act has to be filed within a reasonable time, and the unreasonable delay in filing the application rendered it not maintainable.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned orders passed by the first and second respondents were quashed.
JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 23.01.2012 (Annexure-B) passed by the first respondent and the order dated 30.09.2011 (Annexure-A) passed by the second respondent, whereby the land has been restored in favour of the legal representative of the original grantee by allowing the application filed under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, the PTCL Act).
2. The brief facts of the case is that the land bearing Sy.No.149 measuring 5 acres 6 guntas of Holebenavalli Village, Nidige Hobli, Shimoga Taluk was originally granted to grandfather of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 one Sri Chathra Naika by Government order dated 07.11.1952 under the Land Grant Rules. The original grantee sold 2 acres of land in favour of Smt.Bheemli Bai who is the grandmother of the petitioner, by a registered sale deed dated 07.06.1965. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The legal representative of the original grantee filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act on 30.01.1994 for restoration of the granted land in their favour. The Assistant Commissioner, after hearing the parties allowed the application by order dated 30.09.2011 and restored the land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner by order dated 23.01.2012 dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the same petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. Sri S.V.Prakash, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that land was originally granted in favour of Chathra Naika on 07.11.1952. The said original grantee sold 2 acres of land in favour of the grandmother of the petitioner by a registered sale deed dated 07.06.1965. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979, the application for restoration of the land has been filed on 30.01.1994 and there is a delay of 15 years in filing the application. The application filed by the legal representative of the original grantee itself is not maintainable. In support of his case, he has relied on the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and Another reported in 2017 SCC Online SC 1862 . Hence, he sought for allowing the petition.
4. Per contra, Smt.Savitramma, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contended that the land was granted on 07.11.1952 and as on the date of grant the condition prevalent is non-alienation for ever. By violating the condition the original grantee sold the land in favour of the petitioner. The Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have rightly allowed the application and restored the land to the legal representatives of the original grantee. Hence, she sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers.
6. It is not in dispute that the land bearing Sy.No.149 measuring 5 acres 6 guntas of Holebenavalli Village, Nidige Hobli, Shimoga Taluk was originally granted to grandfather of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 i.e., one Chathra Naika by Government Order dated 07.11.1952 under the Land Grant Rules. The said original grantee Chathra Naika sold 2 acres of land in favour of Smt.Bheemly Bai who is the grandmother of the petitioner herein by a registered sale deed dated 07.06.1965. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The legal representative of the original grantee filed an application for restoration of the granted land under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act on 30.01.1994 after a lapse of 15 years from the date the Act came into force. The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti (supra) has held as hereinbelow:
'8. However, the question that arises is with regard to terms of Section 5 of the Act which enables any interested pers
