Point of law: Decree – Condonation of delay in filing Appeal – Held, appeal preferred before the Deputy Commissioner, where there was a delay of around 3 years 10 months would any way have been condoned by the Deputy Commissioner keeping the beneficial provisions of the Act in mind

ORDER :

R. DEVDAS, J.

The petitioner who had entered into an agreement to purchase the land in question under a Agreement of Sale dated 29.09.1994, filed a suit before the civil Court seeking a decree of Specific Performance of Contract. The civil Court decreed the suit and thereafter a sale deed was executed through the Court on 21.04.2001, in favour of the petitioner herein. Thereafter, an application came to be filed by respondent No.7 herein before the Assistant Commissioner invoking the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (hereinafter referred to as ‘PTCL Act, for short). The Assistant Commissioner noticed that a sale deed dated 21.04.2001 has been executed in favour of the petitioner herein through the Court and it was also an admitted fact that the land in question was acquired by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board’ (for short, ‘KIADB’), by virtue of a notification dated 11.01.1996 and therefore the Assistant Commissioner proceeded to reject the application holding that the petitioner herein is entitled for receiving the compensation at the hands of the KIADB.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.7 did not preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, while the other respondents i.e., respondents No.3 to 5 have filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner on 01.11.2010, there being a delay of 3 years 10 months. It is therefore contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner was required to consider the application seeking condonation of delay and thereafter only if the Deputy Commissioner was of the opinion that the delay was required to be condoned would he get the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

3. Further, it is contended that it is an admitted fact that one Sri. Doddahanumappa was the original grantee, who was granted 8 acres of land in Sy.No.38 of Bhuvanahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, on 10.06.1956. After the death of Sri.Doddahanumappa, in a family partition 2 acres and 19 guntas fell to the share of Sri.Edlappa. It is also an admitted fact that Sy.No.38 was assigned new Sy.No.50. Sri.Edlappa executed a sale deed dated 23.06.1984 in favour of his brother Sri. Muni Narayanappa. Sri.Muni Narayanappa executed a power of attorney dated 27.04.1987, in favour of his brother Sri.Edlappa. Thereafter, Sri.Edlappa as a power of attorney holder entered into an agreement with the petitioner herein on 29.09.1994, to sell the property in question i.e., 2 acres 19 guntas in Sy.No.38 (new Sy.No.50).

4. On 11.01.1996, preliminary notification was issued proposing to acquire the lands in question, by KIADB and on 26.09.1997, the petitioner herein filed O.S.No.345/1997, seeking relief of Specific Performance of Contract dated 29.09.1994. The civil Court proceeded to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the petitioner herein on 10.02.1999. Thereafter, an execution petition was filed by the petitioner and the Court proceeded to execute a sale deed on 21.04.2001, in favour of the petitioner.

5. Learned Counsel would further submit that Sri.Muni Narayanappa, who was title holder, along with the petitioner herein filed a Joint Memo dated 15.04.2002, in Misc. Petition No.10/2002, before the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC., Devanahalli, stating that the respondents i.e., petitioner herein would not enforce the decree in O.S.No.345/1997 and the revenue records with respect to property in question could be changed in favour of Sri.Muni Narayanapapp. In the meanwhile, on 15.04.2002, an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, was moved by respondent No.7 herein, i.e., the son of Sri.Edlappa, who had passed away by that time. The Assistant Commissioner came to a conclusion that since the sale deed is executed by virtue of a Court decree and admittedly the land was acquired by the KIADB, unless and until the decree passed by the civil Court