Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 390
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
H.T. Narendra Prasad, J.
Anand And Others - Appellants
Versus
State Of Karnataka And Others - Respondents
W.P. No. 40687 of 2019 (SC-ST) and W.P. No. 47665 of 2019
Decided On : 09-01-2020
Ramaiah Gowda L.M. and M.S. Chandrashekar Babu, Advocates, for the Appellant; Savithramma, HCGP, Ajay R.A. and Ramaiah Gowda L.M., Advocates, for the Respondent
Applications for restoration of land under the PTCL Act must be made within a reasonable time to be maintainable.
Headnote:
PTCL Act - Restoration of Land - Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 - The court discussed the inordinate delay in filing the application for restoration of land under the PTCL Act, citing the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and Another. The court held that the application filed by the legal representatives of the original grantee was not maintainable due to the unreasonable delay, and therefore, the impugned orders were quashed.
Fact of the Case:
The land was originally granted in 1964 and subsequently sold by the legal representatives of the original grantee. The legal representatives filed an application for restoration of the land under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act in 2007, after a delay of 28 years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application for restoration of the land was not maintainable due to the inordinate delay, citing the judgment of the Honble Apex Court.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the application for restoration of the land under the PTCL Act due to the delay in filing the application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and Another, which held that applications for restoration of land must be made within a reasonable time.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were allowed, and the impugned orders were quashed.
JUDGMENT
H.T. Narendra Prasad, J. - These writ petitions are directed against the order dated 12.09.2011 passed by the third respondent, the order dated 02.06.2014 passed by the second respondent and the order dated 26.10.2018 passed by the third respondent, whereby the authority has restored the land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee by exercising the power 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 case of the petitioners is that the land bearing Sy. No. (Old No. 26) new No. 120 measuring 2 acres situated at Basavapattana Village, Jangamakote Hobli, Sidlaghatta Taluk was originally granted in favour of Guddigangappa under the Land Grant Rules and saguvali chit came to be issued on 30.11.1964. The legal representatives of the original grantee have sold one acre of land in favour of one Muninanjappa, who is the father of the petitioners in W.P. No. 40687/2019, by a registered sale deed dated 19.08.1974 and another one acre in favour of one Narasimhaiah @ Narasimhappa under a registered sale deed dated 15.07.1977. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The legal representatives of the original grantee have filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act for restoration of the land on 29.10.2007. The Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 12.09.2011 allowed the application and restored the land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee. Being aggrieved by the same petitioners in W.P. No. 40687/2019 filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner by order dated 02.06.2014 has dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Consequently, the Assistant Commissioner by order dated 26.10.2018 directed the Tahasildar to restore the land in favour of the original grantee. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners have filed these writ petitions.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that the land in question was originally granted in favour of Guddigangappa by the Government and saguvali chit has been issued on 30.11.1964. The legal representatives of the original grantee have sold one acre each in favour of father of the petitioners in both the petitions on 19.08.1974 and 15.07.1977. The legal representatives of the original grantee have filed an application for restoration of the land on 29.10.2007, after a lapse of 33 years. There is an inordinate delay in filing the application. The application filed by the legal representatives of the original grantee itself is not maintainable. Without considering this aspect of the matter both the authorities, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have allowed the application filed by the legal representatives of the original grantee and Tahasildar was also directed to restore the said land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee. In support of their case, they have relied on the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and Another . Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 47665/2019 submitted that the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner has ve passed the impugned orders without giving an opportunity of hearing to them. Hence, they sought for allowing the writ petition.
4. Per contra, Sri Ajay R.A., learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 and Smt. Savitramma, learned Government Pleader have contended that the land was granted in the year 1964. As on the date of the grant condition for non-alienation was for a period of 15 years. But the legal representatives of the original grantee have sold the land in favour of the fathers of the petitioners by registered sale deeds dated 19.08.1974 and 15.07.1977. Therefore, the authorities have rightly restored the land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee
