Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 37522
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MAY, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 19447 OF 2021 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
SMT SIDDAMMA W/O LATE BASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, R/AT SARAGURU VILLAGE, CHANDAKAVADI HOBLI, CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571313 (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT IS CLAIMED)
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNAMURTHY C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Dig itally R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, signed by REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, ALBHAGYA BENGALURU-560001 Location:
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHAMARAJANAGAR TOWN, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571313 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLLEGALA SUB DIVISION, KOLLEGALA TOWN AND TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571440
4. THE TAHASILDAR B R HILLS ROAD, CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571313
5. SMT MANGALAMMA W/O KUMARA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/A BANAHALLI VILLAGE, SANTHEMARAHALLY HOBLI, CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571313
6. SMT JAYAMMA W/O GOPALARAJU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/A NEELASOGE VILLAGE, T NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571124
7. SMT NEELAMMA W/O BASAVANNA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/A DANDIKERE VILLAGE, MYSURU TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-570010
8. SMT SUNANDA W/O UDAYAKUMAR, D/O KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/A NEELASODE VILLAGE, T NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571124
9. SRI KRISHNAIAH S/O CHAKRAMADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/A BANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571313 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VENKAT SATHAYANARAYAN, HCGP FOR R1-R4; SMT.GEETHA DEVI.M.PAPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R5-R8;
R9 SERVED UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R2 DATED 02.08.2021 IN CASE WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE PETITION AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the purchaser of the granted land questioning the forfeiture order passed by the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that the alienation by the son of the original grantee is in contravention of Section 4(1) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short "PTCL Act").
2. Before I advert to the facts of the present case, it would be useful to refer to the judgments rendered by the Apex Court on this issue in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi .vs. State of Karnataka and another1 and Vivek M. Hinduja .vs. M. Aswatha2. It would be also useful to refer to the judgment rendered by a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.50446 of 2012, which was confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.16/2021 disposed of on
05.04.2021.
3. The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi, while interpreting Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short "PTCL Act") had an occasion to examine the point of limitation wherein interested person can file appropriate application seeking annulment of sale as void under Section 4 of the PTCL Act. The Apex Court by reiterating the principles laid down in Chhedi Lal Yadav .vs. Hari Kishore Yadav3 and also in the case of Ningappa .vs. Deputy
Commissioner and others4 has held that where Statute did not prescribe the period of limitation, the provisions of the Statute must be invoked within a reasonable time. The Apex Court was of the view that the authorities have to give due regard to the period of time within which action has to be taken by the interested person. The Apex Court was of the view that it is well within the discretion of the competent authorities not to annul the alienations where there is inordinate delay in initiating action by the interested persons under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.50446/2012 disposed of on 24.1.2020 declined to entertain the application filed by the original grantee where there was a delay of ten years. This Court was of the view that the application itself was not maintainable since the same was not filed within a reasonable time. While recording the finding, this Court relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ningappa .vs. Deputy Commissioner and others, where the Apex Court had declined to entertain
the application which was submitted after nine years seeking restoration of land under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. The judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.50446/2012 is affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.16/2021.
4. In the instant case, the land in question was granted to one Linga, s/o. Chakramada, who is the grand father of respondents 5 to 8. After his demise there was partition in the family of father of respondents 5 to 8 and his brothers. Respondent No.9 having acquired the property in the family partition, alienated the petition land in favour of petitioner's husband under registered sale deed dated 7.6.1995 and 12.6.1996. Respondents 5 to 8 initiated proceedings seeking restitution by filing an application in 2011. Respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner on an enquiry held that there is contravention of Section 4 of PTCL Act and therefore, proceeded to annul the sale deed and consequently, forfeited the property. Respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner however did not restore the land to the grand father respondents 5 to 8. The said forfeiture was challenged by respondents 5 to 8 questioning the order of forfeiture before the Deputy Commissioner who has concurred with the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Respondents 5 to 8 have not questioned the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner.
The widow of the purchaser is before this Court
