SMT. MUNIYAMMA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AAG A/W SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03/07/2023 IN WRIT PETITION NO.24151/2022 (SC-ST) PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:51734-DB WA No. 1163 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) Appellant/petitioner assailing the order of dismissal of W.P.No.24151/2022 dated 03.07.2023 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, has preferred this appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961.

2. Parties this appeal are referred with reference to their rank in the writ petition.

3. The brief facts made out by the petitioner in the petition are that; petitioner is a daughter of original grantee by name Bodappa. The subject land was granted by the Revenue Authorities initially on temporary lease and thereafter on 23.09.1961, the said temporary grant was confirmed by issuing saguvali chit in the year 1970. Her father sold the subject land under registered sale deed dated 02.04.1971 to one Chinnamma, Wife of Doddamuniyappa. The petitioner filed a petition before the Assistant Commissioner, respondent No.3 herein, in the year 2008 seeking restoration of the subject land by - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:51734-DB WA No. 1163 of 2023 invoking the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short ‘PTCL Act, 1978’). Respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner passed an order on

14.12.2016 issuing a direction to restore the land. Being aggrieved by the same, the purchasers filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner and the said appeal was allowed on 31.10.2022 and thereby dismissed the application of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.24151/2022 before this Court. The said writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 03.07.2023 on the ground of delay. Being dissatisfied with the same, now the petitioner is before this Court in appeal.

4. Learned counsel Sri. Basawa Prasad.K., for the appellant/petitioner with all vehemence submits that the provisions of PTCL Act has no application to the facts of this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:51734-DB WA No. 1163 of 2023 petition relying upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232 and VIVEK M. HINDUJA vs. M. ASWATHA reported in (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC, observing that the restoration application has been filed after delay of 37 years. It is submitted that the impugned order is illegal, contrary to law and facts. Further, it is submitted that as the subject land was a granted land in auction, within 15 years of grant, it was sold to Smt.Chinnamma, Wife of Doddamuniyappa on 02.04.1971 violating conditions of alienation. It is further submitted that from 01.01.1999 PTCL Act, 1978 came into effect and as per Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act, 1978 the petitioner is entitled for restoration of subject land. Therefore, she moved an application for restoration of land in the year 2008 after getting information from villagers. Though the Assistant Commissioner rightly restored the land under order dated 14.12.2016 as per Annexure-C, but the Deputy Commissioner set aside the said order by - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:51734-DB WA No. 1163 of 2023 dismissing the application, as the ground of delay. It is further submitted that, in view of amended provisions of PTCL Act, under Act No.30 of 2023, the amendment is retrospective in nature. Therefore, the provisions of Section 5 of the PTCL Act are applicable and accordingly the application of the petitioner ought to have been allowed by the Deputy commissioner. In addition to the grounds urged in the appeal memo, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.

5. As against this submission, learned Additional Advocate General Smt.Prathima Honnapura along with Smt.B.Sukanya Baliga, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 supported the order of Deputy Commissioner and submits that in view of the strict provisions of PTCL Act, it is prayed to pass appropriate orders.

6. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, the question to be decided in this case is that “Whether - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:51734-DB WA No. 1163 of 2023 the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court suffers from any infirmity or illegality?”.

7. Our answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following reasons: As could be seen from the impugned order of the learned Single Judge of this Court, the learned Single Judge relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court the case of B.K.MUNIRAJU vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2008) 4 SCC 451 as well as NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232 and VIVEK M. HINDUJA vs. M. ASWATHA reported in (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC, and has come to the conclusion that the said claim of the petitioner is not tenable in view of the strict law laid down in the aforesaid judgments by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Thus, it is seen that, the right of the original grantee or his legal heirs seeking restoration of land sold in contravention of the provisions of the PTCL Act was provided quietus by the - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC:51734-DB WA No. 1163 of 2023 Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of CHHEDI LAL YADAV AND OTHERS vs. HARI KISHORE YADAV (D) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS, LAWS (SC) 2017-4-146 and in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232. In the NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court while discussing the rights of the parties, has held as follows: “…………….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 January, 1939 to 31 December. 1950. This relief was granted to the farmers due to flood in the Kosi River which make agricultural operations 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 - 10 - NC: 2024:KHC:51734-DB WA No. 1163 of 2023 unreasonably long period and was liable to be dismissed on that ground…………………….” Therefore, by applying the same analogy, this Court would hold that the findings of the Deputy Commissioner in setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking restoration is just and proper.

8. Moreso, way back in the year 1971 itself grantee has sold the subject land. Now the petitioner cannot seek any restoration by invoking the provisions of PTCL Act, 1978. The Deputy Commissioner has rightly allowed the appeal and learned Single Judge of this Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition. As there was exorbitant delay and latches in seeking the restoration, on that ground itself, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner, which needs no interference. - 11 - NC: 2024:KHC:51734-DB WA No. 1163 of 2023

9. The learned Single Judge has clearly observed that the original grant was on 23.09.1961 and Saguvali Chit was issued in the year 1970 and the father of the petitioner subject favour of Smt.Chinnama, Wife of Doddamuniyappa on 02.04.1971, whereas the petitioner sought restoration by filing application before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2008 with delay of 37 years. There is no explanation whatsoever for such inordinate delay in approaching the authorities. Because of delay, the said restoration application was dismissed and the grant certificate was issued under Form No.1, it is observed by the learned Single Judge that issuing grant certificate under Form No.1 is no more res-integra. In view of the judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court state supra, as the land was purchased way back in the year 1971 by the purchasers from the original grantee, and there is a delay of 37 years in seeking restoration. - 12 - NC: 2024:KHC:51734-DB WA No. 1163 of 2023

10. We are of the considered view that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI and VIVEK M. HINDUJA (supra) is aptly applicable to the present facts on hand. We do not find any perversity or illegality committed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in dismissing the writ petition. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal and it is liable to be dismissed.

11. Resultantly, we pass the following: ORDER (i) Writ appeal is dismissed. (ii) No order as to the cost. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31