Allowed

V Krishnappa S/O V.B. Venkataramaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Oct 2021WP/16441/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition quashing orders passed by Revenue authorities allowing restoration of land. The Court held that an application for restoration under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act filed after a lapse of over 17 years was barred by delay and laches.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders are set aside; the application filed by Respondent No. 4 is rejected.

V Krishnappa S/O V.B. Venkataramaiah Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.16441 OF 2008 (SC/ST)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

1 . V. KRISHNAPPA S/O V.B. VENKATARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶8

2 . M. SAVITHRAMMA W/O V KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶9

BOTH ARE R/AT VITTAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE HUTHUR HOBLI KOLAR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. T V LOKANATHA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY HIS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPT. VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU.

¶14

¶15

2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR

¶16

3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB-DIVISION, KOLAR

¶17

4 . M. RAVINDRA KUMAR S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT VITTAPANAHALLI VILLAGE HUTHUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. M. SANDESH KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3) SRI. R. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)

¶20

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226

¶22

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEX-B DATED 13.12.07 ON THE FILE OF R-2 DATED 5.11.2008 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL

¶24

HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

The petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2007 vide Annexure-B and the order dated 5.11.2008 vide Annexure-C has filed this writ petition.

¶28

Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are

¶29

as under:

¶30

The petitioners have purchased the land in Sy.No.185 (New No.194) to an extent of 3 acres situated at Vittappanahalli Village, Huthur Hobli under registered sale deed dated 4.7.1991. The said land was granted to one Muniswamy s/o.Munivenkatappa who belonged to scheduled caste with a condition that he should not alienate the property within 15 years. The name of Muniswamy was mutated vide MR No.1/79-80. The original grantee alienated the suit land on 4.7.1991 in favour of petitioner No.1. Respondent No.4 filed a petition under Section 5(1) of The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

¶31

¶32

Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PTCL Act’) alleging that the alienation is in violation of the PTCL Act and sought for restoration of the land and also sought for the sale deed as null and void.

¶33

Respondent No.3 issued a notice to petitioner No.1. He filed objection to the said application. Respondent No.3 passed an order allowing the application filed by respondent No.4 holding that the land purchased by the petitioner is in violation of Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.3 preferred an appeal before respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.

¶34

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and

¶35

learned HCGP for respondents No.1 to 3.

¶36

¶37

The matter is of the year 2008. Hence, it is

¶38

taken up for disposal.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.4 has filed the application under Section 5(1) of the PTCL Act after a lapse of more than 16 years. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the application filed by respondent No.4 is liable to dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. He further submits that respondents No.2 and 3 have committed an error in passing the impugned orders. Hence, on these

¶40

grounds he prays to allow the petition.

¶41

Per contra, learned HCGP supports the impugned order.

¶42

Perused the records and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶43

It is not in dispute that the said land was

¶44

granted in favour of Muniswamy s/o.Munivenkatappa

¶45

¶46

in the year 1975 and in view of the said grant,

¶47

mutation was effected in the name of the said Muniswamy vide M.R.No.No.1/79-80. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners have purchased the property under the registered sale deed dated 4.7.1991. After a lapse of more than 17 years, respondent No.4 has filed the application for restoration.

¶48

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in 2017 SCC ONLINE 1862 which is further reiterated in the case of

¶49

MR.VIVEK H HINDUJA AND OTHERS v. MR. ASWATHA

¶50

AND OTHERS reported in 2019 Kar.L.J. 819 (SC) , which is followed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of SMT. NINGAMMA VS. THE TIBETIAN

¶51

CHILDREN'S VILLAGE in WRIT APPEAL NO.4092 OF

¶52

2017 decided on 09.04.2019 it has been held that delay

¶53

¶54

in filing the application for restoration under Section 5 of the PTCL Act cannot be entertained.

¶55

In terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court and that of the Division Bench of this Court, since the application for restoration has been filed beyond the reasonable time, the proceedings intitiated by the petitioner would vitiate. The authorities without considering the said aspect has proceeded to pass the impugned orders. Thus the impugned orders passed by respondents No.2 and 3 suffer from delay and laches.

¶56

In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The application filed by R-4 is rejected.

¶57

SD/JUDGE

¶58

V Krishnappa S/O V.B. Venkataramaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V Krishnappa S/O V.B. Venkataramaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Sree Shaila Kumar G S Vs National Highway Authority of India India

Ms. Zohreh Elyasi Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Shanti Dhama College of Physiotherapy Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri G Krishnappa Vs Smt U R Chandrakala

Master Kushal K . P.R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H Raja Reddy Vs National Highways Authority of India