Allowed

Smt Chinnamma v. D. a. Chandrashekaraiah

Karnataka HC2 Mar 2021WA/2954/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court distinguished the Supreme Court ruling in Vivek M. Hinduja, holding that proceedings initiated in 1981 under the PTCL Act (enacted 1979) were not belated unlike in the cited precedent. The appeal was allowed, and the matter remanded to the Single Judge to decide on merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside. Appeals remanded to the learned Single Judge to consider the writ petition on merits.

Smt Chinnamma Vs D. a. Chandrashekaraiah — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S. SANJAY GOWDA

¶8

WRIT APPEAL No.2574/2019 C/W WRIT APPEAL No.2954/2018 (SC-ST)

¶9

IN W.A. No.2574/2019

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI MUNIRAJU S/O. LATE MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT KODIGENAHALLI VILLAGE K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 036

¶12

NOW PRESENTLY R/AT DOOR NO.91, RAMASWAMY PALYA, MARUTHI SEVANAGAR POST, BANASAWADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 033.

¶13

... APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI MUNIYAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRI D.A. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH S/O. D.A. APPANNA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.24, DEVASANDRA MAIN ROAD, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 033.

¶17

SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O. D.A. APPANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.24, DEVASANDRA MAIN ROAD, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 036.

¶18

¶19

SRI D.A. THIMMAIAH S/O. D.A. APPANNA SINCE DEAD BY LR's.

¶20

SMT. GAYATHRI W/O. LATE D.A. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶21

SRI D.T. SRIKANTH S/O. LATE D.A. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶22

SRI D.T. ARVIND S/O. LATE D.A. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶23

SRI D.T. AVINASH S/O. LATE D.A. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶24

SRI D.T. RAJASHEKAR S/O. LATE D.A. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶25

RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 7 ARE R/T NO.24, DEVASANDRA MAIN ROAD, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 036.

¶26

SRI D.A. SRINIVAS S/O. LATE D.A. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/T NO.24, DEVASANDRA MAIN ROAD, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 036.

¶27

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶28

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION PODIUM BLOCK, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶29

¶30

SMT. GANGAMMA W/O. LATE MUNISWAMY (SINCE DECEASED) SINCE DEAD BY LR's. ALREADY ON RECORD

¶31

SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA D/O. LATE MUNISWAMY & W/O. MUNIYAPPA (SINCE DECEASED) SINCE DEAD BY LR's.

¶32

SRI M. JANAKIRAM S/O. MUNIYAPPA & S/O. SMT. MUNILAKSHMMA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶33

SMT. M. NAGAVENI W/O. DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶34

SRI S. MADHUSUDAN S/O. LATE SHASHIKALA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

¶35

SRI S. RUPESH S/O. LATE SHASHIKALA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

¶36

RESPONDENT NOS.11 TO 14 ARE R/AT NO.32, PAPAMMA BUILDING, RAJ KUMAR ROAD, SUBBAIAHNAPALYA, M.S. NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 039.

¶37

NOW PRESENTLY R/AT NO.18, OMKAR NILAYA, CHIKKA BEERAPPA LAYOUT, 5^TH CROSS, K. CHANNASANDRA RAMPURA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 043.

¶38

SMT. NARAYANAMMA D/O. LATE MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT KODIGENAHALLI VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 036.

¶39

¶40

NOW PRESENTLY R/AT DOOR NO.91, RAMASWAMY PALYA MARUTHI SEVANAGAR POST, BANASWADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 033.

¶41

SRI ANJINAPPA S/O. GANGAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR's.

¶42

SMT. CHINNAMMA W/O. LATE ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT KODIGENAHALLI VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 036.

¶43

SMT. AMMAIAMMA D/O. GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKABASAVANAPURA VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, VIRGONAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 049. ... RESPONDENTS

¶44

(BY SRI SANTHOSH FOR SRI M.S. VARADARAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-8; SRI S. RAJASHEKAR, AGA FOR R-9 AND R-10; SRI T.G. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-11 TO R-15; SMT. M.D. ANURADHA URS, ADVOCATE FOR R-16 AND R-17)

¶45

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03/09/2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO.24921/2009 [SC-ST] PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL.

¶46

IN W.A. No.2954/2018

¶47

BETWEEN:

¶48

SMT. CHINNAMMA W/O. LATE ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK - 560 036.

¶49

SMT. AMMAIAMMA D/O. GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶50

¶51

R/AT CHIKKABASAVANAPURA VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, VIRGONAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 049. ... APPELLANTS

¶52

(BY SRI M.D. ANURADHA URS, ADVOCATE)

¶53

AND:

¶54

1.	D.A. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH S/O. D.A. APPANNA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, NO.24, DEVASANDRA MAIN ROAD, K.R. PURAM HOBLI - 560 036 BANGALORE EAST TALUK.
2.	RATHNAMMA W/O. D.A. KARUNASHEKARAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NO.24, DEVASANDRA MAIN ROAD, K.R. PURAM HOBLI - 560 036 BANGALORE EAST TALUK.
3.	D.A. THIMMAIAH S/O. D.A. APPANNA SINCE DEAD BY LR's.
3(a)	SMT. GAYATHRI W/O. LATE D.A. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
3(b).	D.T. SRIKANTH S/O. LATE D.A. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
3(c).	D.T. ARAVIND S/O LATE D.A. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
3(d).	D.T. AVINASH S/O. LATE D.A. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
3(e).	D.T. RAJASHEKAR S/O. LATE D.A. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
	RESPONDENT NOS.3(a) TO 3(e) ARE R/AT NO.24, DEVASANDRA MAIN ROAD, K.R. PURAM HOBLI - 560 036 BANGALORE EAST TALUK.

¶55

¶56

D.A. SRINIVAS S/O. D.A. APPANNA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, NO.24, DEVASANDRA MAIN ROAD, K.R. PURAM HOBLI - 560 036 BANGALORE EAST TALUK.

¶57

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶58

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION PODIUM BLOCK, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶59

SMT. GANGAMMA W/O. LATE MUNISWAMY MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560 036. (SINCE DEAD BY LR's. 8, 8(a) to 8(d), 9 & 10 ALREADY ON RECORD AS PER ORDER DATED 02/03/2021)

¶60

SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA W/O. LATE MUNISWAMY, SINCE DEAD BY LR's.

¶61

8(a) SRI. M. JANAKIRAM S/O. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶62

8(b). SMT. M. NAGAVENI W/O. DODDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶63

8(c). SRI S. MADHUSUDAN S/O. LATE SHASHIKALA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

¶64

8(d). SRI S. RUPESH S/O. LATE SHASHIKALA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,

¶65

RESPONDENTS 8(a) TO 8(d) ARE

¶66

¶67

R/AT NO.32, PAPAMMA BUILDING, RAJ KUMAR ROAD, SUBBAIAHNAPALYA, M.S. NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 039.

¶68

SMT. NARAYANAMMA D/O. LATE MUNISWAMY, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560 036.

¶69

SRI MUNIRAJU S/O. LATE MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560 036. ... RESPONDENTS

¶70

(BY SRI SANTHOSH FOR SRI M.S. VARADARAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI S. RAJASHEKAR, AGA FOR R-5 AND R-6; SRI MUNIYAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R-10 (VIDE ORDER DATED 02/03/2021); R-1, R-3 (a to e), R-4 AND R-8 (b & c) ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶71

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03/09/2018 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO.24921/2009 [SC-ST] AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR OF SUFFICIENT APPEAL IN TIME.

¶72

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶73

J U D G M E N T

¶74

Though these appeals are listed for preliminary

¶75

hearing, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, they are heard finally.

¶76

The legality and correctness of the order dated 03/09/2018, passed in W.P.No.24921/2009 is called in question in these intra-court appeals. These appeals arise

¶77

¶78

under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "the PTCL Act" for the sake of convenience).

¶79

The respondent/writ petitioners assailed order dated 22/09/2008, passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District upholding the order dated 27/03/2006 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North in the writ petitions. Those orders were passed under the provisions of Sections 5 and 5A respectively of the PTCL Act on the premise that there was violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act in respect of the transactions relating to land bearing Sy.No.39 (New No.39/4) measuging 1 acre 20 guntas which was granted to Muniswamy/the original grantee and there being alienation of the said land within the period of nonalienation stipulated as a condition of the grant. It is not necessary to advert to the other details of the case as the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petitions filed by the petitioners by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vivek M.Hinduja and others vs. M. Ashwatha and others [Civil Appeal No.2166/2009 with Civil Appeal No.2167/2009

¶80

¶81

decided on 06/12/2017 [2018 (1) Kar. L.R 176 (SC)] (Vivek M.Hinduja) on the ground that there was delay in initiating proceedings in respect of the sale which initially was made by the original grantee/Muniswamy to Mariappa on 29/09/1962. That the proceedings were initiated fifty years after the initial sale in the year 1962 and hence, the proceedings had to be quashed. Being aggrieved, the legal representatives of the original grantee has preferred W.A.No.2574/2019 and connected Writ Appeal No.2954/2018 has been filed by the legal representatives of Gangaiah in respect of whom suo moto proceeding was initiated by the Assistant Commissioner.

¶82

We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶83

During the course of submission, learned counsel for the appellants drew our attention to Annexure - C being the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North, dated 25/06/1999, which was subsequent to an earlier remand made, wherein it has been clearly stated that in respect of the land in question, the suo moto proceeding was initiated by the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru Sub-Division, Bengaluru, by

¶84

10 -

¶85

issuance of notice dated 12/03/1981. It was submitted at the Bar that the PTCL Act was enforced with effect from 01/01/1979 on the date it was published in the Karnataka Gazette (Extraordinary) and therefore, the proceeding initiated by issuance of notice on 12/03/1981 is not belated as the said proceeding was initiated within a reasonable period from the date of enforcement of the PTCL Act i.e., with effect from 01/01/1979. It was submitted that the transactions may have taken place right from the year 1962 onwards, but the validity of the said transaction could be considered only after the enforcement of the PTCL Act i.e., with effect from 01/01/1979 having regard to Section 4 of the PTCL Act. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that it is Section 4 of the PTCL Act, which enables the proceedings to be commenced

¶86

in relation any contravention of the terms of the grant of land or the law providing for such grant and a transfer of such granted land being made. That any sale subsequent to the commencement of the PTCL Act or transfer made for any such granted land without prior permission of the grant is also void. That the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under the provisions of the PTCL Act was conferred on the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner only

¶87

11 -

¶88

with effect from 01/01/1979 and in the instant case, notice was issued under the provisions of the PTCL Act on 12/03/1981. The same cannot be held to be after a long lapse of time after the enforcement of PTCL Act and hence, learned single Judge was not right in applying the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vivek M.Hinduja .

¶89

Learned Additional Government Advocate

¶90

submitted that having regard to the facts of this case, appropriate orders may be made.

¶91

Learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners submitted that the impugned order would not call for any interference and that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would squarely apply to the present case.

¶92

In the circumstances, we have also perused the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vivek M.Hinduja . In that case, it was noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Act came into force 01/01/1979, but the competent authorities initiated proceedings in the year 1998. Hence, there was delay in initiation of proceedings and following the earlier judgment in the case

¶93

12 -

¶94

of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and another [C.A.No.1390/2009, decided on

¶95

26/10/2017] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that on account of delay in initiation of proceedings and having regard to the lapse of time that had occurred and the proceedings not having been initiated within the reasonable time, the said proceedings were quashed.

¶96

The aforesaid case would not apply to the present case as in notice was issued by the respondent/Assistant Commissioner on 12/03/1981. As already noted, the PTCL Act was enforced with effect from 01/01/1979 and the initiation of suo moto proceedings by the Assistant Commissioner on 12/03/1981 cannot be held to be belated or after a long lapse of time or not being within the reasonable time. Learned single Judge, however, has considered the lapse of time from the date of first transaction, which took place in the year 1962 the same could not have been the basis for holding that for a long period of fifty years no action was initiated.

¶97

As already contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, the jurisdiction that was exercised by the Assistant Commissioner in the instant case could have

¶98

13 -

¶99

been only after the enforcement of the PTCL Act i.e., subsequent to 01/01/1979 and as per Annexure - D, it is noted that notices were issued by the Assistant Commissioner on 12/03/1981, which is within two years time. Even in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been clearly noted that the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner suo moto was on an application under the provisions of the PTCL Act could be only on and from 01/01/1979 and in this case, the notice being issued on 12/03/1981 is not belated or after a long lapse of time. But, the learned single Judge has calculated the lapse of time from the date of first transaction, which took place in the year 1962. No proceedings have been initiated de hors the PTCL Act in the instant case. The only suo moto proceeding which has been initiated is under the provision

¶100

of the PTCL Act which has been initiated on or after 01/01/1979. That being the position, we do not think that the learned single Judge was right in allowing the writ petition and quashing the order of the competent authority under the PTCL Act. On that short ground alone, the impugned order is set aside. However, there being no consideration of the case on the correctness or otherwise of the orders of the competent authorities in the writ

¶101