Writ petition challenging Deputy Commissioner's reversal of Assistant Commissioner's order restoring land alienated post-prohibition period. Court held alienation was valid, prior order rejected, and delay fatal.
The writ petition is dismissed as it is devoid of merits.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.12366 OF 2021 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
SRI. P.BALARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS S/O LATE PUTTA NARASAIAH R/AT NEAR GUNDANJINEYA SWAMY TEMPLE KORATAGERE TOWN
TUMUKUR DISTRICT-572129
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.LEELADHAR H P, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
WP No. 12366 of 2021
RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 6 R/AT GOWDAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 129
P. CHIKKA HANUMANTHAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS ALREADY ON RECORD AS RESPONDENT NO.9
WP No. 12366 of 2021
A.RAJASHEKHAR SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS ALREADY ON RECORD AS 10 TO 13
SL.NOS.7 TO 13 ARE R/AT NEAR GUNDANJINEYA SWAMY TEMPLE KORATAGERE TOWN TUMUKUR DISTRICT-572 129
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VENKAT SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R.1 AND R.2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE OFFICE OF THE R.1 IN RA PTCL 8/2017-18 AND ALSO FROM THE R.2 IN PTCL SR 9/2013-14 AND DIRECT IN THE FORM OF WRIT AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02.12.2020 PASSED BY THE R.1 IN RA (PTCL) 8/2017-18 UNDER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
WP No. 12366 of 2021
ORDER
This captioned writ petition is filed by the son of the original grantee questioning the order of respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner, who has reversed the order of restoration ordered by respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner. Respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner has also declined to entertain the appeal filed by son of the original grantee questioning the order passed by the respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner on an application filed by the original grantee seeking restoration in the year 1980. The grantee suffered an order at the hands of the respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 08.04.1981, wherein the petition filed by the original grantee was rejected way back in the year 1981. The second round of litigation is initiated by the son of original grantee in the year 2017.
The subject matter of the petition land is the land bearing Sy. No.10. The petition land was granted to the
petitioner's father vide order dated 20.03.1951. The original grantee namely Putta Narasaiah sold the entire land measuring 4 acres to the father of respondent Nos.3 to 5 under registered sale deed in the year 1967. The alienation is made after expiry of non-alienation clause, which was for a period of 10 years. The original grantee, who is the father of petitioner, sought for restoration of land by filing a petition in the year 1980. The said petition was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 08.04.1981. The present petitioner, who claims to be son of original grantee, by suppressing the earlier order again moved petition seeking restoration of the land. The respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner has entertained the second application and has ordered for restoration by holding that the alienation made by original grantee in the year 1967 was in contravention of Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short "PTCL Act").
WP No. 12366 of 2021
WP No. 12366 of 2021
MANCHEGOWDA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA1 has held
that the provisions of 'PTCL Act' cannot be made applicable to the alienations made prior to commencement of PTCL Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case JAGADISH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA has also culled out para No.24 of MANCHEGOWDA'S CASE, I deem it fit to cull out para No.24, which reads as under;
“24. Though we have come to the conclusion that the Act is valid, yet, in our opinion, we have to make certain aspects clear. Granted lands which had been transferred after the expiry of the period of prohibition do not come within the purview of the Act, and cannot be proceeded against under the provisions of this Act. The provisions of the Act make this position clear, as Sections 4 and 5 become applicable only when granted lands are transferred in breach of the condition relating to prohibition on transfer of such granted lands. Granted lands transferred before the commencement of the Act and not in contravention of prohibition on transfer are
1 1984(3) SCC 301
WP No. 12366 of 2021
clearly beyond the scope and purview of the present Act. Also in case where granted lands had been transferred before the commencement of the Act in violation of the condition regarding prohibition on such transfer and the transferee who had initially acquired only a voidable title in such granted lands had perfected his title in the granted lands by prescription by long and continuous enjoyment thereof in accordance with law before the commencement of the Act, such granted lands would also not come within the purview of the present Act, as the title of such transferees to the granted lands has been perfected before the commencement of the Act. Since at the date of the commencement of the Act the title of such transferees had ceased to be voidable by reason of acquisition of prescriptive rights on account of long and continued user for the requisite period, the title of such transferees could not be rendered void by virtue of the provisions of the Act without violating the constitutional guarantee. We must, therefore, read down the provisions of the Act by holding that the Act will apply to transfers of granted lands made in breach of the condition imposing prohibition on transfer of granted
WP No. 12366 of 2021
lands only in those cases where the title acquired by the transferee was still voidable at the date of the commencement of the Act and had not lost its defeasible character at the date when the Act came into force. Transferees of granted lands having a perfected and not a voidable title at the commencement of the Act must be held to be outside the pale of the provisions of the Act. Section 4 of the Act must be so construed as not to have the effect of rendering void the title of any transferee which was not voidable at the date of the commencement of the Act.”
and findings recorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of MANCHEGOWDA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
it is clearly evident that Sections 4 and 5 of the 'PTCL Act' are applicable only if the granted lands were transferred in breach of condition relating to prohibition on transfer of such granted lands. The Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that granted lands transferred before commencement of the 'PTCL Act' and not in contravention of prohibition on
WP No. 12366 of 2021
transfer are clearly found beyond scope and purview of 'PTCL Act'. If the granted land is sold after expiry of prohibition period and before commencement of the 'PTCL Act', the alienation is saved and the grantee cannot proceed under the provisions of 'PTCL Act'. Therefore, respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner erred in entertaining the petition and therefore, the order of restoration passed by respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner is contrary to the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of JAGADISH VS. STATE
OF KARNATAKA (cited supra).
liable to be rejected is that the son of grantee could not have filed a second petition in the year 2013 as the original grantee has already suffered an order in the year 1981, which is evident as per Annexure-H. If the original grantee failed to secure restoration, his legal heir could not have maintained a second application. This aspect is rightly dealt by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner.
WP No. 12366 of 2021
Respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner has not only set aside the order of restoration ordered by respondent No.2
with the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in the year 1981, wherein the petition filed by the original grantee was rejected. Respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner has dismissed the appeal questioning the order dated 08.04.1981 on the ground that the appeal is filed after lapse of 37 years. Therefore, the order passed by respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner by entertaining the second application is not at all sustainable.
Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi .vs. State of Karnataka and another2 and Vivek M. Hinduja .vs. M. Aswatha3 . In
2 (2020) 14 SCC 232
3 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC
WP No. 12366 of 2021
the instant case, the original grantee alienated the land in the year 1967. The petition is filed in the year 2014. Therefore, there is a delay of 37 years.
WP No. 12366 of 2021
under statute where no limitation is stipulated. The law on the point of delay and laches to invoke the provisions of PTCL Act is well settled by catena of judgments.
WP No. 12366 of 2021
that the order passed by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner is in consonance with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited supra. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
NBM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act apply to land alienated after the expiry of the prohibition period but before the commencement of the Act.
Whether the legal heir of the original grantee can file a second petition for restoration after the original petition was rejected in 1981.
Whether the petition for restoration filed after 37 years is maintainable in the face of gross delay and laches.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Manchegowda vs. State of KarnatakaRelied on¶5
1984(3) SCC 301 · Who else cites this
Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and anotherRelied on¶8
(2020) 14 SCC 232 · Who else cites this
Vivek M. Hinduja vs. M. AswathaRelied on¶8
(2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SRI. P.BALARAMAIAH
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MADHUGIRI SUB-DIVISION
SMT.S. N. USHA RAJ
SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
SRI. RANGARAJU
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
