Dismissed

Smt. Devadasi Anjinamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Nov 2021WP/146122/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three connected writ petitions challenged orders dismissing claims for restoration of land and compensation under the Karnataka SC/ST Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands Act. The Court held that proceedings initiated 41 years after the sale were not within a reasonable time.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed for unreasonable delay of 41 years in initiating proceedings under the Karnataka SC/ST Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands Act.

Smt. Devadasi Anjinamma Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WP No.146124/2020 C/W WP No.146122/2020 & WP No.146123/2020 (SC/ST)

¶7

WP No.146124/2020:

¶8

Between

¶9

Shivanna, s/o late Jeethappa

¶10

Aged about 67 years r/o Kudithini village Ballari Taluk, Ballari District – 583 115.

¶11

Swamy, s/o late Sri Hulugappa Aged about 57 years r/o Kudithini village Ballari Taluk, Ballari District – 583 115.

¶12

Smt.Sanna Durgamma w/o late Sri Mallappa aged about 55 years r/o Kudithini village Ballari Taluk, Ballari District – 583 115 Now r/a Ananthashayanagudi Village, Hosapete Taluk Vijayanagara District-583225. ..Petitioners

¶13

(By Sri K Raghavendra Rao, Advocate)

¶14

¶15

A n d

¶16

The State of Karnataka Department of Revenue M S Building, Bengaluru – 560 001, Rep. by its Principal Secretary.

¶17

The Assistant Commissioner Ballari Taluk, Ballari District – 583101.

¶18

The Deputy Commissioner Ballari District, Ballari – 583101.

¶19

The Special Land Acquisition Officer KIADB, Industrial Area, Lakkamanahalli, P B Road Dharwad – 580001.

¶20

O Rudragouda

¶21

s/o late Sri Devendrappa Aged Major, r/o Haraginadoni Village, Ballari Taluk, Ballari District – 583115. ... Respondents

¶22

(By Sri Shashank S Hegde, Advocate for R4, Sri Umesh P Hakkarki, Advocate for R5)

¶23

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue an order in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order passed in Revision PTCL Appeal No.41/2019-20 dated 04.03.2020, by Deputy Commissioner Ballari i.e. respondent No.3 vide Annexure—F confirming the order passed in Revision PTCL Case No.12/201011, dated 08.08.2019, by the Assistant Commissioner, Ballari i.e. respondent No.2 vide Annexure-D and consequently allow the petition filed by petitioners.

WP No.146122/2020:

Between

Devadasi Anjinamma d/o late Devadasi Gangamma Aged about 55 years r/o Kudithini village Ballari Taluk, Ballari District – 583 115. ..Petitioner

¶28

(By Sri K Raghavendra Rao, Advocate)

¶29

A n d

¶30

The State of Karnataka Department of Revenue M S Building, Bengaluru – 560 001, Rep. by its Principal Secretary.

¶31

The Assistant Commissioner Ballari Taluk, Ballari District – 583101.

¶32

The Deputy Commissioner Ballari District, Ballari – 583101.

¶33

The Special Land Acquisition Officer KIADB, Industrial Area, Lakkamanahalli, P B Road Dharwad – 580001.

¶34

O Rudragouda s/o late Sri Devendrappa Aged Major, r/o Haraginadoni Village, Ballari Taluk, Ballari District – 583115.

¶35

... Respondents

¶36

(By Sri Shashank S Hegde, Advocate for R4, Sri Umesh P Hakkarki, Advocate for R5)

¶37

¶38

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue an order in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order passed in Revision PTCL Appeal No.43/2019-20 dated 04.03.2020, by Deputy Commissioner Ballari i.e. respondent No.3 vide Annexure—F confirming the order passed in Revision PTCL Case No.14/201011, dated 08.08.2019, by the Assistant Commissioner, Ballari i.e. respondent No.2 vide Annexure-D and consequently allow the petition filed by petitioner.

¶39

WP No.146123/2020

¶40

Between

¶41

Ballari Eranna s/o late Ballari Huluga aged about 68 years r/o Kudithini village Ballari Taluk, Ballari District – 583 115.

¶42

Smt.Huligemma Devadasi d/o late Ballari Huluga aged about 65 years r/o Kudithini village Ballari Taluk, Ballari District – 583 115.

¶43

..Petitioners

¶44

(By Sri K Raghavendra Rao, Advocate)

¶45

A n d

¶46

The State of Karnataka Department of Revenue M S Building, Bengaluru – 560 001, Rep. by its Principal Secretary.

¶47

¶48

The Assistant Commissioner Ballari Taluk, Ballari District – 583101.

¶49

The Deputy Commissioner Ballari District, Ballari – 583101.

¶50

The Special Land Acquisition Officer KIADB, Industrial Area, Lakkamanahalli, P B Road Dharwad – 580001.

¶51

O Rudragouda s/o late Sri Devendrappa Aged Major, r/o Haraginadoni Village, Ballari Taluk, Ballari District – 583115.

¶52

Smt.Neelamma w/o O Rudragouda Aged Major, r/o Haraginadoni Village, Ballari Taluk, Ballari District – 583115. ... Respondents

¶53

(By Sri Shashank S Hegde, Advocate for R4, Sri Umesh P Hakkarki, Advocate for R5)

¶54

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue an order in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order passed in Revision PTCL Appeal No.42/2019-20 dated 04.03.2020, by Deputy Commissioner Ballari i.e. respondent No.3 vide Annexure—F confirming the order passed in Revision PTCL Case No.13/201011, dated 08.08.2019, by the Assistant Commissioner, Ballari i.e. respondent No.2 vide Annexure-D and consequently allow the petition filed by petitioner.

¶55

¶56

These writ petitions coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is similar, they are taken up together for final disposal.

¶59

In WP No.146124/2020, the land bearing Sy.No.1150/D measuring 5 acres 97 cents, situated at Kudithini village, Ballari Taluk and District was granted on 29.1.1958 in favour Hanumanthappa who belonged to schedule caste community. The said land was alienated on 16.12.1969 in favour of respondent No.5.

¶60

In WP No.146122/2020, the land bearing

¶61

Sy.No.1150/C measuring 1 acre 82 cents situated at Kudithini village, Ballari Taluk and District was granted on 29.1.1958 in favour Hanumakka, the grandmother of the petitioner, who belonged to schedule caste community. The said land was alienated on 16.12.1969 in favour of respondent No.5.

¶62

In WP No.146123/2020, the land bearing Sy.No.1150/E measuring 2 acres 37 cents situated at Kudithini

¶63

¶64

village, Ballari Taluk and District was granted on 29.1.1958 in favour Ballari Huluga, the father of the petitioners, who belonged to schedule caste community. The said land was alienated on 16.12.1969 in favour of respondent No.5. Thereafter, respondent no. 4 has acquired the land in question under section 28 of KIADB Act on 04.05.2010.

¶65

The petitioners filed a petition in

¶66

Revenue/PTCL/12/10-11, Revenue/PTCL/14/10-11 and Revenue/PTCL/13/10-11 in WP No.146124/2020, WP No.146122/2020 and WP No.146123/2020 respectively 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 respondent no 2- Assistant Commissioner for declaring the sale deeds dated 16.12.1969 as null and void and disburse compensation amount in favour of petitioners with respect to acquired land in question. Respondent no 2 dismissed the petition by order dated 08.08.2019. In an appeal filed by the petitioners, the respondent no 3 dismissed the appeal by order dated 04.03.2020. Hence this writ petition.

¶67

¶68

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

¶69

transfer of the land in question is made in violation of Section 3(1)(e) read with Section 4 of the Act. He further submitted that the period of 41 years in initiating the action for declaring the sale deeds as null and void and claiming disbursed compensation in their favour for the acquired lands in question cannot be said to be such as to amount to delay and laches as would make the action void, considering that it is in respect of beneficial legislation for the scheduled castes and scheduled tribe community. In support of his submission, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satyan - vs- Deputy Commissioner and Ors. reported in AIR 2019 SC 2797 .

¶70

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 submitted that the alienation of the granted land was made in favour of the respondent no. 5 by execution of the registered sale deeds dated 16.12.1969. It is further submitted that no time limit is prescribed for initiation of action under the Act, however, the same has to be initiated within a

¶71

¶72

reasonable time. However, the proceedings under Section 5 of the Act was initiated in 2010 i.e. after the lapse of 41 years. In support of his submission, he placed a reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi -vs- State of Karnataka and another reported in ILR 2018 Kar. 1352 and a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cheddi Lal Yadav and others -vsHarikishore Yadav (d) thr. lrs and others reported in (2018) 12 SCC 527 .

¶73

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

¶74

Admittedly, in the instant case, the land in question was conveyed to the respondent no. 5 by registered sale deeds dated 16.12.1969. The Supreme Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra) while dealing with provisions of the Act has held that Section 5 of the Act 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

¶75

¶76

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 41 years. A Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.83/2020 (Muniga @ Muniyappa -vs- Sri.Balakrishna and others) , where the proceeding was initiated after a period of 29 years from the date of enactment of the Act has held that the proceeding was not initiated within a reasonable time. However, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has been appreciated by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner. The proceeding initiated after a lapse of 41 years after the execution of the sale deeds cannot be said to be initiated within a reasonable time especially in the absence of any explanation in this regard.

¶77

In the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision relied upon by the petitioners in the case of Satyan (supra), it was held that the delay of eight years itself does not come in the way of the competent Authority taking the action, as limitation principles would not apply as observed in the case of Amrendra Pratap

¶78

¶79

Singh -vs- Tej Bahadur Prajapati and others reported in (2004) 10 SCC 81 para 25. However, the Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra) and Cheddi Lal Yadav (supra) has held that where the period of limitation is not prescribed, an application for restoration is to be filed within a reasonable period. In the instant case, proceeding was initiated after an inordinate delay of 41 years. Hence, the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Satyan (supra) will be of no avail. Thus, it is held that the proceedings for declaring the sale deeds as null and void which is nevertheless same as restoration of land and claiming disbursed compensation in their favour for the acquired lands in question have not been initiated within a reasonable time. With these observations, the writ petitions are dismissed.

¶80

Sd/JUDGE

¶81

bkm

Smt. Devadasi Anjinamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Devadasi Anjinamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Rashmi D/O Vivekanandayya Hiremath, Vs the Vice-Chancellor

Smt.Mallavva @ Mallamma Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Shri.Subhash Kashinath Nevagi Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Sunanda Marigoudar Vs the Common Cadre Committee

Shivanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Shankargouda S/O Lakanmangouda Vs State of Karnataka