Appeal dismissed. The court held that a 20-year delay in filing an application for land restoration under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 rendered the proceedings time-barred despite the Single Judge's contrary order.
The appeal was dismissed with no orders as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2019
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
WRIT APPEAL No.1028 OF 2019 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
Sri Muniraju, Aged about 55 years, S/o.Late Gullojappa, Resident of Bodarahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District. ... Appellant
(By Sri Viswanatha Setty V., Advocate (Absent))
AND :
2
V.V.Tower, Bengaluru.
(By Sri D.Nagaraj, AGA for R2 and R3)
This writ appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High court Act praying to set aside the order dated: 10.10.2018 passed by the Hon’ble learned Single Judge in WP No.38966/2011 by allowing the above writ appeal.
This writ appeal, coming on for orders, this day, H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 challenging the judgment and order dated 10th October 2018, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.38966/2011, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition.
3
guntas situated at Anekal Village was granted to one A.K.Muniga, the grandfather of the appellant herein. The legal representatives of the grantee have sold that land by a registered sale deed on 3rd October 1985 to the first respondent herein. The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, ‘the PTCL Act’) came into force on 1st January 1979. The appellant herein filed an application for restoration of the land under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, in the year 2006. The Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 20 July 2007 dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved by the same, the legal representative of the original grantee has filed an appeal before the Special Deputy Commissioner. The Special Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 26th August 2011 has allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, the purchaser has filed a writ petition before
4
this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.38966/2011. The learned single Judge by order dated 10th October 2018 has allowed the writ petition on the ground that the Act has come into force on 1st January 1979 and that the application has been filed after a lapse of 20 years, by following the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of VIVEK M.HINDUJA AND OTHERS
vs. M.ASHWATHA AND OTHERS1 Being aggrieved by
the same, this appeal has been filed.
in favour of the original grantee, that is, grandfather of the appellant, in the year 1941. The PTCL Act has come into force on 1st January 1979. The original grantees legal representatives have sold the land on 3rd October 1985 to the first respondent herein. In the year 2006, the respondent has filed an application for
1 Civil Appeal No.2166/2009 dt.6.12.2017
5
restoration of the land under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. They have initiated the proceedings after 20 years from the date of the sale. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI vs. STATE OF
KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER2 has held that to initiate the proceedings under Section 5 of the PTCL Act has to be initiated within a reasonable time. In the case on hand, the sale has been held in the year 1985 and the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act has been filed in the year 2006. There is a delay of 20 years in invoking the provisions of the PTCL Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that there is a delay
in invoking Section 5 of the PTCL Act.
Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, we are of the
opinion that there is no error in the order passed by the
2 2017 SCC Online SC 1862
6
learned Single Judge.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/JUDGE
Cm/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the application for restoration of land under Section 5 of the PTCL Act filed after a lapse of 20 years is maintainable?
Whether the delay in filing the application under the PTCL Act vitiates the relief granted by the Single Judge?
Whether the Writ Appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act should be allowed?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vivek M. Hinduja and Others vs. M. Ashwatha and OthersFollowed¶26
Vivek M. Hinduja and Others vs. M. Ashwatha and Others
Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and AnotherRelied on¶33
Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and Another
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri Muniraju
Sri Sheik Hyder
The Asst. Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division
The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District
Abhay S. Oka
H.T. Narendra Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
