T V Krishna Reddy v. The Deputy Commissioner

((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:44344( WP(No.(4274(of(2024( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010060152024( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

TH DATED(THIS(THE(18 (DAY(OF(AUGUST,(2026(

BEFORE(

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

WRIT(PETITION(NO.(4274(OF(2024((SCST)(

BETWEEN:(( (

1., T.V.,KRISHNA,REDDY,

S/O,VENKATASWAMY, AGED,ABOUT,59,YEARS, R/AT,Y.,HOSKOTA,VILLAGE,

KASABA,HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA,TALUK, KOLAR,DISTRICT,563,135.,

…PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,CHANDRASHEKHARA,REDDY,K.N.,,ADVOCATE), ,

AND:( (

1., THE,DEPUTY,COMMISSIONER,

KOALR,DISTRICT, Digitally ZILLADALITHA,BHAVAN, signedtiby NEAR,JALALPPA,MEDICAL,COLLEGE,GEETHA0P0G NH-75,MULABAGAL,ROAD,Location: KOLAR-563,103.,HIGH COURT0OF , KARNATAKA 2., THE,ASSISTANT,COMMISSIONER, KOLAR,SUB-DIVISION, OFFICE,OF,THE,, ASSISTANT,COMMISSIONER, KOLAR-563,101., ,

3., RADHAMMA, D/O,LATE,ANJINAPPA, AGED,ABOUT,43,YEARS, R/AT,KRISHNAMMA-HIOSAHALLI,VILLAGE, KASABA,HOBLI, ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:44344( WP(No.(4274(of(2024( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010060152024( ( ( CHINTAMANI,TALUK-563,135., , FORMERLY,RESIDENT,AT, YELAVAKUNTE,VILLAGE, KASABA,HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA,TALUK, KOLAR,DISTRICT-563,135., ,

4., THE,TAHSILDAR, SRINIVASAPURA,TALUK, MINI,VIDHANASOUDHA, SRINIVASAPURA-563,135., ,

5., THE,STATE,OF,KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED,BY,THE, PRINCIPAL,SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT,OF,LAND,REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560,001., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SMT.,SAVITHRAMMA,,AGA,FOR,R1,,R2,,R4,AND,R5;, ,,,,,,SRI.,S.VISWESWARAIAH,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R3), , , THIS,PETITION,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLES,226,&,227,OF, THE,CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,,PRAYING,TO,ISSUE,THE,WRIT, ORDER,TO,DECLARE,THAT,,THE,PARLIAMENTARY,AFFAIRS,AND, LEGISLATION, SECRETARIAT, NOTIFICATION, NO.DPAL, 25, SHASANA,2023,,BENGALURU,DATED,27.07.2023,BY,AMENDED, TO, THE, SECTION, 5(1)(c), AND, (d), OF, THE, KARNATAKA, SCHEDULED,CASTES,AND,SCHEDULED,TRIBES,(PROHIBITION, OF,TRANSFER,OF,CERTAIN,LANDS),AMENDED,KARNATAKA,ACT, NO.30/2023, DATED, 27.7.2023), IS, IMPROPER,, UNCONSTITUTIONAL,AND,ULTRA,VIRES,TO,THE,PROVISION,OF, THE,CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,VIDE,PUBLIC,POLICY,AND,THE, IMPUGNED,NOTIFICATION,COPY,OF,THE,KARNATAKA,GAZETTE, DOCUMENT,IS,PRODUCED,AS,ANNEXURE-L,AND,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 1979. He belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. The land was sold in the year 1997. The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'PTCL Act') came into force on

01.01.1979. Respondent no.3 is the legal representative of the original grantee. For the first time, an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act challenging the sale was filed in the year 2014. Respondent no.2-Assistant Commissioner allowed the said application. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order of Assistant Commissioner has been dismissed by respondent no.1-Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶2The case of the petitioner is that, an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act has been filed after an unreasonable delay of 17 years from the date of sale and the said delay has

not been satisfactorily explained. 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.

¶4Learned counsel for respondent no.3 as well as learned Additional Government Advocate justify the impugned orders and pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

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

¶6Hon'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 an unreasonable delay in challenging the sale

becomes fatal to an application filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act.

¶7Admittedly, the sale was effected in the year 1997. The application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was filed only in the year 2014, after a lapse of 17 years from the date of sale. The said delay has not been satisfactorily explained by respondent no.3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the same has to be held as unreasonable. Respondent nos.1 and 2 have committed an error by passing the impugned orders. Accordingly, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

¶8Hence, the following: ORDER

(i) The writ petition is allowed;

(ii) The impugned order dated 02.03.2023 bearing no.J¯ï.J£ï.r/J¸ï¹ì.J¸ï.n/²æÃ/19/2014-15 passed by respondent no.2-Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-G to the writ petition is hereby set aside;

(iii) The impugned order dated 22.09.2023 bearing no.¦.n.¹.J¯ï 07/2023 passed by respondent no.1-Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-K to the writ petition is hereby set aside;

(iv) The application filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act by respondent no.3 before respondent no.2 is hereby dismissed.

Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38