Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 29064
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MAY, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 40166 OF 2012 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
1. KENCHAPPA, S/O RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
2. CHANDRAPPA, S/O LATE GUDIGOWDRA, KENCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
3. CHANNAPPA, S/O LATE GUDIGOWDRA, KENCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N ALL ARE R/AT Location: High Court of Karnataka TALIKATTE VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 526.
…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ADINARAYAN., ADVOCATE (OF M/S A.N.N.
ASSOCIATES)
AND:
1. KENCHAPPA, S/O ASADI KENCHAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY LR'S:
1(a). MURUDAPPA, S/O RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
KENCHAPPA, 1(b). S/O RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
1(c). CHITRAPPA, S/O RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT GANDHINAGAR, THIPPAGONDANAHALLI POST, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001.
2. SIDDAPPA, S/O MULEMANE GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT TALIKATTE VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 526.
3. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, CHITRA DURGA, CHITRA DURGA DISTRICT - 577 501. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHITRA DURGA, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VENKAT SATHYANARAYAN., HCGP FOR R3 & R4;
SRI. SHASHIDHARA., ADVOCATE FOR R1(A & C)
(VAKALAT NOT FILED FOR R1C)
R1 B-SERVED;
(VIDE ORDER DATED 12/2/2014, THIS PETITION IS DISMISSED AS AGAINST R2)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER THE ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 8.12.2006 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND THE SAME HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 8.8.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-A VIDE ANNEXURES-B & A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the grand son of original grantee feeling aggrieved by the order dated 08.12.2006 passed by respondent No.3 in SCPTL/IILK/4/2003-04 vide Annexure-B and order dated 08.08.2012 passed by respondent No.4 in SCPTL(A)40/2006-07 vide Annexure-A.
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 present case on hand, the petitioners'
land, totally measuring 2 acres, was granted in favour of the grand father of respondent No.1 on 02.01.1952. The original grantee, who is the grand father of respondent No.1 herein, sold the entire 2 acres in favour of one Govindappa under two registered sale deeds dated 13.01.1969 and 05.02.1973. The grandchildren of the original grantee initiated proceedings seeking restoration of the land on the ground that the alienations by the original grantee contravened the provisions of Section 4 of the PTCL Act, 1978. In the present case on hand there is a delay of 30 years. Therefore, in effect, third-party rights were created pursuant to alienations by the original grantee, and the purchasers are in settled possession for more than three decades. From the records, it is also forthcoming that original alienations were made prior to the commencement of the PTCL Act, which came into force with effect from 01.01.1979. The order of respondent No.3-Assistant Commission in restoring the lands in favour of the grantees family is not sustainable as it is contrary to the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the judgment cited supra, had occasion to examine the rights of grantees in seeking restorat
