IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100265 OF 2023
BETWEEN:

ERAPPA S/O. NARAYANAPPA,

AGE: 81 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GINIGERA, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL, PIN: 583231.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL-583231.

2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL-583231.

YASHAVANT 3. SURESH S/O. SEVARAM LAKHOTIA,

NARAYANKAR
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS,
R/O: C/O. S.R.C CHEMICALS PVT. LTD,
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT BANGAL ROAD, ALLA NAGAR, KOPPAL,
NARAYANKAR
Location: High Court of TQ AND DISTRICT: KOPPAL-583231.
Karnataka, Dharwad
Date: 2023.06.26 …RESPONDENTS.
11:28:13 +0530
(BY SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADV. FOR R3,
SRI. V. S. KALASURMATH, ADV. FOR R1 & R2).

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH

COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO, SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2022 IN W.P NO. 144491/2019
(KLR-RES) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE CIVIL JUDGE, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
 2

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND

'RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT' ON 15.06.2023, COMING ON
FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT', THIS DAY,
VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This intra-court appeal is filed challenging the

order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.11.2022

passed in W.P No.114449/2019 (KLR-RES) wherein

the writ petition filed by the respondent No.3 was

allowed.

2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this appeal

are that, the Respondent No.3 invoked the writ

jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, seeking prayer to issue writ of

certiorari to quash the orders dated 22.08.2015 and

12.09.2019 passed by respondent No.1 and

Respondent No.2, at Annexure-A and Annexure-B to

the writ petition.

3. It is averred that the land bearing

Sy.No.5/1 measuring 3 acres situated at Alla Nagar,

 3

Koppal Taluk and District was purchased by the

respondent No.3 from the appellant vide registered

sale deed 09.03.2005. It is further averred that the

appellant who has sold the property to the respondent

No.3, had acquired the property vide grant order

dated 04.09.1978 and the appellant belongs to the

deprived community.

4. It is also averred that the appellant has

initiated the proceedings under Section 4 and 5 of the

Karnataka Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes

(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978

(hereinafter referred to as ‘PTCL Act’, for short). The

respondent No.1 vide order dated 22.08.2015 has

held that the sale transaction between the parties is in

violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act. Being

aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner

dated 22.08.2015, the respondent No.3 has filed the

appeal challenging the order dated 22.08.2015 before

 4

the respondent No.2 Deputy Commissioner, Koppal.

The respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner dismissed

the appeal filed by the respondent No.3 vide order

dated 12.09.2019 by confirming the order of the

Assistant Commissioner dated 22.08.2015. The

respondent No.3 has assailed the order dated

22.08.2015 of the respondent No.1 and 12.09.2019 of

the respondent No.2 in W.P.No.114449/2019.

Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by

quashing the impugned orders. In the above factual

matrix the present appeal has been filed.

5. Learned Counsel Sri. Mrutyunjaya S.

Hallikeri, for the appellant submits that learned Single

Judge has committed error in setting aside the orders

passed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 on the ground

that there is delay in initiation of proceedings under

Section 5 of the PTCL Act. It is submitted that the

finding recorded by the learned Single Judge suffers

 5

from grave infirmities. The learned Single Judge

ought to have considered the fact that the respondent

no.3 had played fraud on the grantee and got the sale

deed executed in the guise of mortgage deed and

further his request to enter his name in revenue

records was rejected as the same was in

contravention of provisions of PTCL act by the revenue

authorities. It is further submitted that the fraud

played by the purchaser in getting sale deed executed

in their favour vitiates all the proceedings hence,

sought to interfere in the present appeal.

6. Per contra, learned counsel Sri Anand

R.Kolli for respondent No.3 supports the impugned

order of the learned Single Judge and submits that

learned Single Judge has considered the case on hand

keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Laxmi

 6

Vs. State of Karnataka and another 1 and has

rightly concluded that the initiation of proceedings

under the provisions of PTCL Act is belated one. He

seeks for the dismissal of the appeal.

7. Learned H.C.G.P. Sri V.S. Kalasurmath

appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that

the appellant is not diligent in pursuing his rights, he

has approached the Assistant Commissioner after

lapse of more than seven years, learned Single Judge

has considered the settled legal position of law and

allowed the writ petition which does not call for any

interference in the present appeal.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the

appellant, learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2

and the learned counsel for respondent No.3 and

perused the material on record.

1 [(2020) 14 SCC 232]

 7

9. It is not in dispute that the subject land

i.e., land bearing Sy.No.5/1 measuring 3 acres

situated at Alla Nagar, Koppal Taluk and District was

granted to the appellant on 04.07.1978 and the

appellant belongs to deprived community. It is also

not in dispute that the appellant has alienated the

subject land in favour of the respondent No.3 vide

registered sale deed dated 09.03.2005 and thereafter

the revenue records were mutated in the name of

respondent No. 3/purchaser.

10. The appellant has initiated proceedings

under Section 5 of t he PTCL Act for resumption of

land on the ground that the subject land has been

alienated in violation of Section 4 (2) of the PTCL Act.

The Assistant Commissioner allowed the application of

the grantee for resumption and the same was

confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner in appeal. It is

also not in dispute that the subject land was

 8

alienated/sold by the appellant grantee on 09.03.2005

in favour of the respondent No.3 and has initiated

proceedings for resumption of land after lapse of 7

years. The land in question is utilised for the purpose

of industrial activities and the factory building has

been constructed on the land in question. When

things stood thus, the initiation of proceedings by the

grantee after a period of 7 years is an after thought,

that too after receiving the entire sale consideration

from the respondent No. 3. The initiation of

proceedings under Section 5 before the Assistant

Commissioner is hit by doctrine of unreasonable

delay. The appellant grantee has contended that the

purchaser has played fraud and in the guise of

execution of mortgage deed has got executed the sale

deed and in support of the said contention, he has

relied on the unregistered mortgage deed dated

19.11.2015 entered between neighbouring landowners

and the respondent No. 3/purchaser. The said

 9

contention is required to be rejected for the reason

that the appellant grantee cannot make bald assertion

of fraud without there being any proper pleading

supported with acceptable evidence. Mere reliance on

some unregistered mortgage deed contending that

fraud has been played on the grantee cannot be

accepted. Moreover, the appellant/grantee with open

eye has executed registered Sale Deed, when the

appellant has executed registered sale deed it is not

open for him to contend that, in the guise of mortgage

deed, sale deed, was got executed.

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Nekkanti Rama Laxmi referred supra has held that

the application for restoration and resumption of land

should be filed within a reasonable time. In the

instant case the appellant grantee has filed an

application for restoration and resumption after a

period of 7 years, the said time cannot be termed as

 10

reasonable period. hence, the case on hand is clearly

covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in the case of Nekkanti Rama Laxmi supra.

12. Learned Single Judge has considered the

case of the grantee on merits and on appreciation of

material on record, has categorically held that the

appellant has initiated the proceedings under Section

5 of PTCL Act after lapse of 7 years and after third

party interest has been created, we do not find any

error in the aforesaid findings of the learned Single

Judge calling for interference in the present appeal.

13. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not

find any merit in this appeal. The same fails and

hereby dismissed.

Sd/-
JUDGE

Sd/-
JUDGE
NAA