Dismissed

M/S Terracon Projects v. M/S Sri Sai Raghava Developers

Karnataka HC21 Sept 2021WA/612/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed an intra-court appeal filed against the quashing of an order declaring a land sale void under the SC/ST Act. The court held that the initiators filed proceedings after an inordinate delay of 26 years, rendering them unreasonable, and that the appellant was a pendente lite purchaser without locus standi.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed; pending interlocutory applications were consigned to the record room.

M/S Terracon Projects Vs M/S Sri Sai Raghava Developers — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO.612 OF 2021 (SCST)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

M/S TERRACON PROJECTS, NEAR ATTIBELE SCHOOL, JIGALA ROAD, ATTIBELE, BENGALURU DISTRICT-562107.

¶11

REPRESNTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI S V BABU S/O LATE RAMABADRA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.927, 18TH A MAIN 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560010. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR K, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

M/S SRI SAI RAGHAVA DEVELOPERS NO.19, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 15TH CROSS, LAKKASANDRA, BENGALURU-560030.

¶14

REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, SRI.G.SURESH KUMAR.

¶15

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560009.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE-560009.

¶18

SRI.PAPANNA

¶19

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶20

SMT MOTAMMA W/O LATE PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS

¶21

SMT CHANNAMMA D/O LATE PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶22

SRI ANJINAPPA S/O LATE PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶23

SMT VENKATALAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶24

SRI MANJUNATH S/O LATE PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶25

SRI SRINIVAS S/O LATE PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶26

RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 9 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT

¶27

¶28

JAMBAVA NAGAR HOSUR BAGILU ANEKAL TOWN BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562106.

¶29

10. SRI NARAYANASWAMY

¶30

S/O PAPANNA AGED MAJOR PRESENTLY RESIDING AT JAMBAVA NAGAR HOSUR BAGILU, ANEKAL TOWN BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562106

¶31

11. SRI NARAYANAPPA

¶32

S/O LATE NAGAPPA AGED MAJOR PRESENTLY RESIDING AT JAMBAVA NAGAR HOSUR BAGILU, ANEKAL TOWN BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562106

¶33

12. SRI LAKSHMANA

¶34

S/O LATE NAGAPPA AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT SHAMSUNDAR BUILDING ATTIBELE, ANEKAL ROAD BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562106

¶35

13. SRI CHANDRAPPA

¶36

S/O LATE NAGAPPA AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT SHAMSUNDAR BUILDING ATTIBELE, ANEKAL ROAD BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562106.

¶37

SRI RUDRAPPA SINCE DEAD AND LRS ARE NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD IN W P NO.14163/2013

¶38

¶39

SRI SHUKOOR SAB SINCE DEAD AND LRS ARE NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD

¶40

IN W P NO.14163/2013

¶41

SMT KOTHA KRISHNA KUMARI W/O K NAGA MALLESWARA RAO AGED MAJOR RESIDENT OF KODIHALLI EXTENSION H A L II STAGE BANGALORE-560008

¶42

SRI A SATHYANARAYANA S/O TATHAIAH AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT NO.1227 4TH CROSS HAL 3RD STAGE NEW THIPPASANDRA BANGALORE-560075.

¶43

SRI KIRAN KUMAR S/O N M VEERA JANENDRA (RETD. C E) AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT NO.581 12TH A MAIN J P NAGAR 2ND PHASE BANGALORE-560078. …RESPONDENTS

¶44

(BY SRI JEEVAN J NEERALAGI, AGA)

¶45

¶46

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.14163/2013 (SC-ST) DATED 20.11.2020.

¶47

¶48

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR J ., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶49

JUDGMENT

¶50

This intra-court appeal under Section 4 of the

¶51

Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 is filed against the order dated 20th November 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.14163/2013.

¶52

The land bearing Sy.No.173 (New No.214) measuring 2.00 acres 25 guntas situated at Indlabele village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk was granted in favour of Sri Venkataramanappa who belonged to scheduled caste community in 1936.

¶53

The grantee viz., Venkataramanappa sold an extent of 1 acre out of 2 acres 25 guntas of land in question in favour of Shukoor Sab by executing a registered sale deed dated 20.4.1966. He in turn, sold the land in question in favour of the father of respondents No.5 to 8 through a registered sale deed dated 18.9.1977. Thereafter the deceased Nagappa i.e. the father of

¶54

¶55

respondents No.5 to 8 sold 1 acre in favour of the 1st respondent by executing a registered sale deed dated 13.7.1995. The deceased Papanna, the son of the original grantee Venkataramanappa sold the remaining extent of 1 acre 25 guntas in favour of the 1st respondent by executing a registered sale deed dated 17.8.1995. The name of the 1st respondent was mutated in the revenue records as owner in possession to the entire extent of land and he developed the land by forming a residential layout.

¶56

The deceased Papanna and his son Narayanaswamy i.e. respondent No.10 filed a petition in K.SC.ST.77/2004-05 under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short `PTCL Act’) before the 3rd respondent - Assistant Commissioner for declaring the sale deed dated 17.8.1995 as null and void and to restore the land in question in their favour. The Assistant Commissioner after declaring the sale deed executed in favor of the 1st respondent as null

¶57

¶58

and void and restored the land in favor of deceased Papanna and respondent No.10. In appeal filed by the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent – Deputy Commissioner concurred with the findings recorded by the 3rd respondent - Assistant Commissioner and dismissed the appeal by order dated 7.9.2012. Being aggrieved, the 1st respondent filed WP No.14163/2013.

¶59

The learned Single Judge by placing reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of

¶60

Smt. Nekkanti Ramalakshmi -vs- State of Karnataka and Vivek .M. Hinduja and others -vs- M Ashwatha & others by order dated 20.11.2020 allowed the writ petition and quashed the order passed by the 2nd respondent - Deputy Commissioner and the 3rd respondent - Assistant Commissioner.

¶61

The appellant claiming that the respondents No.4 to 10 after obtaining permission from the competent authority under Section 4(2) of PTCL Act sold the land in its favor under a registered sale deed dated 21.6.2013 ie.,

¶62

¶63

during the pendency of the writ petition has filed this appeal challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶64

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has acquired the right, title and interest over the land in question by virtue of the sale deed executed in its favour by the legal heirs of the deceased grantee. He further submitted that by order dated 4.7.2014, the writ petition was dismissed as against the respondents No.2, 7, 10 and 11 and deceased respondents No.3, 8 and 9 for not taking steps and as such the writ petition ought to have been dismissed. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in law.

¶65

8. On the other hand, the learned Additional

¶66

Government Advocate supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge and sought for dismissal of the writ appeal.

¶67

¶68

We have considered the submissions made by

¶69

the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

¶70

Admittedly, 1 acre of land out of 2 acres 25 guntas of land was sold by the deceased original grantee to Shukoor Sab by executing a registered sale deed dated 20.4.1966. The remaining extent of land measuring 1 acre 25 guntas was sold by the deceased Papanna, the son of the original grantee in favour of the 1st respondent by executing a registered sale deed dated 17.8.1995. The deceased Papanna after lapse of more than sixty years from the date of alienation of 1 acre of land and after lapse of ten years from the date of registered sale deed dated 17.8.1995 alienating the remaining extent of 1 acre 25 guntas in favour of the 1st respondent initiated proceedings under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act.

¶71

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra) while dealing with provisions of the Act has held that Section 5 of the Act

¶72

¶73

neither provides for any period within which an application under the Act has to be made nor prescribes the time within which suo motu action may be initiated. It has been held that the provisions of the statute even in the absence of any period of limitation must be invoked within reasonable time and the period of delay of 25 years in initiation of proceedings has been held to be unreasonable. In the instant case, the proceeding has been initiated after a lapse of 26 years after the Act came into force so far it relates to alienation of land to an extent of 1 acre and after lapse of ten years from the date of alienation of remaining extent of 1 acre 25 guntas of land and no explanation was offered with regard to the delay in initiating the proceedings. A Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.83/2020 (Muniga @ Muniyappa -vs-

¶74

Sri.Balakrishna and others) , where the proceeding was initiated after a period of 29 years from the date of enactment of the Act was held that the proceeding was not initiated within a reasonable time. However, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has neither been appreciated by the

¶75

¶76

Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner. The learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the order passed by the Authorities restoring the land in question in favour of the grantee by placing the reliance on the decisions of the Apex court in the case of Smt. Nekkanti Ramalakshmi - vs- State of Karnataka and Vivek .M. Hinduja and others - vs- M Ashwatha & others and the same cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

¶77

The appellant claims to have purchased the land in question under a registered sale deed dated 21.6.2013 i.e. during the pendency of the writ petition. The appellant had not acquired any right, title and interest over the land in question during the pendency of the proceeding before the Authorities or at the time of filing of the writ petition. The learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that there was an inordinate delay in initiating the proceedings under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act by placing the reliance on

¶78

¶79

the decisions of the Apex Court. The appellant did not have a subsisting right over the land in question as on the date of filing of the writ petition. Since the land in question was purchased during pendency of writ petition, he was a pendente lite purchaser. Hence, he was not a necessary or proper party to the writ petition. Even otherwise, the sale deed executed in favor of the appellant is hit by doctrine of lis pendens .

¶80

A perusal of order sheet dated 6.7.2014 in WP No.14163/2013 discloses that the writ petition was dismissed as against respondents No.2, 7, 10 and 11 and deceased respondents No.3, 8 and 9 for not taking steps. The appellant has no locus standi to maintain the challenge to the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the writ petition was dismissed as against the deceased respondents No.3, 8 and 9, since the aggrieved parties are the legal representatives of the said deceased respondents and they have not chosen to challenge the impugned order.

¶81

¶82

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we pass the following:

¶83

ORDER

¶84

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

¶85

In view of disposal of writ appeal, pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration

¶86

and the same are consigned to record room.

¶87