G Narayana v. State of Karnataka

((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:40141( WP(No.(25714(of(2022( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010600722022( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

ST DATED(THIS(THE(31 (DAY(OF(JULY,(2026(

BEFORE(

THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(M.I.ARUN(

WRIT(PETITION(NO.25714(OF(2022((SCST)(

( BETWEEN:(( (

1., G.,NARAYANA, AGED,ABOUT,58,YEARS, S/O,GIRITHIMMAIAH,

R/O,GIRI,AGENCIES, HORTICULTURE,DEPARTMENT,ROAD, S,S,PURAM,,TUMAKURU-572101.,

…PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,S,V,PRAKASH,,ADVOCATE), (

AND:( (

1., STATE,OF,KARNATAKA,

BY,ITS,PRINCIPAL,SECRETARY,Digitally signedtiby DEPARTMENT,OF,REVENUE, GEETHA0P0G BENGALURU-560001., Location: , HIGH 2., THE,DEPUTY,COMMISSIONER, COURT0OF TUMAURU,DISTRICT, KARNATAKA TUMAKURU,-,572101., ,

3., THE,ASSISTANT,COMMISSIONER, TUMAKURU,SUB,DIVISION, TUMAKURU-572101., , , GANGABHOVI, , , S/O,HANUMANTHAIAH, , SINCE,DEAD,BY,LRS, , ,

4., T,G,UMESH, ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:40141( WP(No.(25714(of(2022( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010600722022( ( ( AGE:,MAJOR, S/O,LATE,GANGABHOVI, ,

5., T,G,DORERAJ, AGE:,MAJOR, S/O,LATE,GANGABHOVI, ,

6., JAYAMMA, AGE:,MAJOR, D/O,LATE,GANGABHOVI,, ,

7., VIJAYALAKSHMI, AGE:,MAJOR, D/O,LATE,GANGABHOVI, ,

8., KUSUMA, AGE:,MAJOR, D/O,LATE,GANGABHOVI, , ALL,ARE,RESIDING,AT,NO.29,, HORTICULTURE,DEPT.,,ROAD, S,S,PURAM,,TUMKUR,TOWN-572101., ,

9., BASAVARAJU, MAJOR, S/O,DANAPPA, JUNIOR,ENGINEER, PWD,DEPARTMENT, SHOVMOGGA,577201., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,BHAIRAV,KUTTAIAH,,AGA.,,FOR,R.1,TO,R.3;, VIDE,ORDER,DATED,07.03.2024,NOTICE,TO,, R.8,IS,HELD,SUFFICIENT;, VIDE,ORDER,DATED,19.09.2023,R.9,IS,DELETED;, R.4,TO,R.7,ARE,SERVED,AND,UNREPRESENTED.), , , THIS, PETITION, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLE, 226, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA,, PRAYING, TO, QUASH, THE, ORDER, DATED, 16.12.2022, PASSED, BY, THE, RESPONDENT, NO.2, IN, CASE,NO.PTCL,27/02-03,ANNEXURE-H,TO,THE,WRIT,PETITION,

WHEREBY AND WHERE UNDER, CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 09.01.2003 IN CASE NO.PTCL:2/98-99 VIDE ANNEXURE-G, ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

ORAL ORDER

¶1The land which is the subject matter of the writ petition was granted in favour of the original grantee in the year 1970. He belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. There was a non-alienation clause that the land should not be alienated for a period of ten years from the date of grant. After the non-alienation period was over, the land was sold for the first time in the year 1981. Presently, petitioner is said to be owner of the property concerned. For the first time, the sale has been challenged in the year 1998 under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'PTCL Act'). The said application was allowed by respondent no.3-Assistant Commissioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the

order of respondent no.3 has been dismissed by respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶2The case of the petitioner is that, the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act has been allowed inspite of an unreasonable delay of 17 years since the date of the first sale and the said delay is unexplained. On the said ground, it is prayed that the writ petition be allowed.

¶3In the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, he has challenged the constitutional validity of the amendment made to Section 5 of the PTCL Act in the year 2023. However, he submits that he does not press for the same. His submission is placed on record.

¶4Respondent nos.4 to 7 though served have remained unrepresented. Notice to respondent no.8 is held sufficient.

¶5Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3 justifies the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶6The only question that arises for consideration is whether there is any inordinate and unreasonable delay in making an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act.

¶7The Hon'ble Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and Another reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232 as well as the decision of this Court in the case of R.Suresh Mohan v. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.3597/2018 have held that if there is an unreasonable delay in challenging the sale, it becomes fatal to the application made under Section 5 of the PTCL Act.

¶8Admittedly, in the instant case there is a delay of around 17 years since the date of the first sale. The said delay is not explained and under the given facts and circumstances of the case, it has to be held as unreasonable.

¶9Hence, the following: ORDER

(i) The impugned order dated 09.01.2003 passed by respondent no.3 bearing no.PTCL.2/98-99 vide Annexure-G to the writ petition is hereby set aside;

(ii) The impugned order dated 16.12.2022 passed by respondent no.2 bearing no.¦n¹J¯ï-27/02-03 vide Annexure-H to the writ petition is hereby set aside;

(iii) The application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act filed before respondent no.3 is hereby dismissed;

(iv) The writ petition stands allowed accordingly;

Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23