Writ Appeal No. 962 of 2023 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9206-DB WA No. 962 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 962 OF 2023 (SC-ST) BETWEEN: SRI.S.D. NARASIMHAMURTHY, S/O A K NARASIMHAIAH, @ DOOMONU @ DOOMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT SOPPAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 101. (BY SRI. VISHWANATH .R HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: …APPELLANT Digitally signed by PRAJWAL A Location: High Court of Karnataka 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU -560 001, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLAPUR, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 101. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 101. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9206-DB WA No. 962 of 2023
Legal Reasoning
SRI. DODDAPILLAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS, 4. SHETTIAPPA, S/O LATE DODDAPILLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, SOPPA HALLI, DIBBUR POST, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 101. 5. SAROJAMMA, W/O RAMAPPA, D/O LATE DODDAPILLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, KATRIGUPPE VILLAGE, DIBBUR POST, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 101. 6. NANEMMA, W/O BYANNA, D/O LATE DODDAPILLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RENUMAKANAHALLI, GENGERE KALUVE POST, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 101. 7. MUNILAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE SEETHABYRAREDDY, D/O LATE DODDAPILLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, VODDARAHALLI, DIBBUR HALLI POST, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 101. 8. RAJANNA, S/O LATE DODDAPILLAPPA, AGED BOUT 50 YEARS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9206-DB WA No. 962 of 2023 SOPPA HALLI, DIBBUR POST, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 101. 9. SMT. NARAYANAMMA, W/O SRI. PILLANARAYANAPPA, R/AT SOPPAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 101. (BY SMT SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1-R3, R4 TO R9 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE CASE WP NO-44561/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.12.2021 IN WP No-44561/2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT AND
Decision
DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION. IA NO.1/2023 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT PRAYING TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 470 DAYS IN FILING THIS APPEAL. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS ALONG WITH IA NO.1/2023 THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9206-DB WA No. 962 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) The challenge in this intra-Court appeal is to an order dated 16.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.44561/2013, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos.4 to 8. 2. The appellant herein was respondent No.4 in the writ petition. The subject matter of the writ petition was a challenge to an order dated 18.03.2011 passed by respondent No.3, namely the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkaballapur sub Division and an order dated 16.09.2013 passed by respondent No.2/the Deputy Commissioner of Chikkaballapur. 3. The orders were in respect of land in Sy.No.101, block No.9 measuring 1 acre 32 guntas of Soppahalli Village, KasabaHobli, Chikkaballapur Taluk and land bearing survey No.200 measuring 3 acres 12 guntas situated in the same village, which were granted in favour of father of the appellant namely A.K.Narasimahaiah. A.K.Narasimahaiah had executed a registered sale deed dated 10.07.1968. The appellant herein - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9206-DB WA No. 962 of 2023 had filed an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short ‘the PTCL Act’) in the year 2007 alleging the sale deed dated 10.07.1968 is in violation of Section 4(1) of the said Act. 4. Respondent No.3/the Assistant Commissioner after holding an enquiry held that, the sale deed is in violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act and allowed the application filed by the appellant herein. 5. Respondent Nos.4 to 8 being aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.3/the Assistant Commissioner had filed an appeal before respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner also dismissed the appeal. In the above background, the writ petition was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos.4 to 8 before the learned Single Judge. 6. The learned Single Judge by referring to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in 2018(1) KAR.L.R. 5(SC) and in the case OF VIVEK M.HINDUJA AND OTHERS VS. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9206-DB WA No. 962 of 2023 M.ASHWATHA AND OTHERS reported in 2018(1) KAR.L.R. 176(SC) has held in paragraph No.8 on wards as under: “8. The land in question was granted in favour of father of the respondent No.4 under grant order dated 01.06.1957. Original grantee executed a registered sale deed on 10.07.1968 prior to PTCL Act came into force i.e. on 01.01.1979. Thereafter, respondent No.4 filed an application under Sections 4 & 5 of the PTCL Act for declaring registered sale deed executed by original grantee dated 10.07.1968 as null and void and for restoration of land. Respondent No.3 after holding an enquiry held that sale transaction is in violation of Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act and consequently allowed the application filed by the respondent No.4 and declared the registered sale deeds as null and void and ordered for restoration of land in favour of respondent No.4. The said order was confirmed by respondent No.2. From perusal of records, it is clear that original grantee executed a registered sale deed dated 10.07.1968. The respondent No.4 has filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act in the year 2007 i.e., after lapse of more than 40 years from the date of execution of registered sale deed and also more than 25 years from the PTCL Act came into force. Thus, there is inordinate delay in filing an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The respondent No.4 has not explained the delay in - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9206-DB WA No. 962 of 2023 filing the said application. Thus, the application filed by the respondent No.4 is beyond reasonable time. 9. In view of the law laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra), it is observed in para No.8 which reads as under: "8. However, the question that arises is with regard to terms of Section 5 of the Act which enables any interested person to make an application for having the transfer annulled as void under Section 4 of the Act. This Section does not prescribe any period within which such an application can be made. Neither does it prescribe the period within which suo motu action may be taken. This Court in the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav & Ors. vs. Hari Kishore Yadav (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors., 2017(6) SCALE 459 and also in the case of Ningappa vs. Dy. Commissioner & Ors. (C.A. No. 3131 of 2007, decided on 14.07.2011) reiterated a settled position in law that whether Statute provided for a period of limitation, provisions of the Statute must be invoked within a reasonable time. It is held that action whether on an application of the parties, or suo motu, must be taken within a reasonable time. That action arose under the provisions of a similar Act which provided for restoration of certain lands to farmers which were sold for arrears of rent or from which they were ejected for arrears of land from 1st January, 1939 to 31st December, 1950. This relief was granted to the farmers due to flood in the Kosi River operations which make impossible. An application for restoration was made after 24 years and was allowed. It is in that background that this Court upheld that it was unreasonable to do so. We have no hesitation in upholding that the present application for restoration of land made by respondent-Rajappa was made after an unreasonably long period and was liable to be dismissed on that ground. agricultural - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9206-DB WA No. 962 of 2023 the judgments Maregouda Accordingly, the of namely, R. Karnataka High Court, Rudrappa vs. Deputy Commissioner, 2000 (1) Karnataka Law Journal, 523, Maddurappa vs. State of Karnataka, 2006 (4) Karnataka Law Journal, 303 and Deputy G. Commissioner, District, Chitradurga and Ors, 2000(2) Kr. L.J.Sh. N.4B holding that there is no limitation provided by Section 5 of the Act and, therefore, an application can be made at any Order time, accordingly." Chitradurga overruled. The are vs. 10. In view of the law laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vivek M. Hinduja (supra), it is observed in para No.10 which reads as under: in are "10. We respectful agreement with the aforesaid observations. It is, however, necessary to add that where limitation is not prescribed, the party ought to approach the competent Court or authority within reasonable time, beyond which no relief can be granted. As decided earlier, this principle would apply even motuactions." 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi's (supra) case held that application under Section 5 of PTCL Act must be invoked within a reasonable time. Though statute does not prescribed any limitation, it has to be filed within a reasonable time. Thus, as observed above, respondent No.4 has invoked provision of PTCL Act after more than 25 years from the PTCL Act came into force and more than 45 years from the date of execution of registered sale deed. Thus, there is inordinate delay in filing an application. Respondent - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9206-DB WA No. 962 of 2023 Nos.2 & 3 without examining the said aspect have proceeded to pass the impugned orders. Thus, the impugned order passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 are arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law of laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Hence, the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.2 & 3 are liable to be set aside. In view of the above discussions, I proceed to pass the following:- ::ORDER:: Writ Petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 18.03.2011 passed by the respondent No.3 vide Annexure-F and the order dated 16.09.2013 passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-G are hereby quashed and set aside. In view of disposal of writ petition, I.A.No.1/2020 does not survive for consideration.“ 7. From the above, it is clear that, the learned Single has concluded that, the appellant herein had invoked provisions of PTCL Act, after more than 25 years from the PTCL Act came into force and more than 45 years from the date of execution of the registered sale deed. It was his conclusion that, there is an inordinate delay in filing the application. The Respondent Nos.2 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:9206-DB WA No. 962 of 2023 and 3 without examining the aspect of delay and laches have proceeded to passed the impugned orders. 8. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition. 9. Mr. Vishwanath R Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the appellant do not contest the fact that, the sale deed was executed on 10.07.1968 and that the challenge was only made in the year 2007. 10. If that be so, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as referred to by the learned Single Judge held that, if any challenge is made after an unreasonably long period of delay, the sale cannot be interfered with." 11. In view of the conclusion arrived at the learned Single Judge based on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we do not find any merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. 12. That apart we note, the appeal has been filed with a delay of 470 days. We dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. Consequently, the appeal and I.A.No.1/2023 are dismissed. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:9206-DB WA No. 962 of 2023 13. Pending I.A.No.2/2023 for stay do not survive for consideration and has become infructuous. Sd/- (V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9