Dismissed

Sri Lokaiah Naika v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Jan 2021WP/2012/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged orders quashing a land sale between Scheduled Tribe members. Court rejected argument that same-community sale exempted prior permission requirement under the PTCL Act. Held transaction void for lack of State permission due to condonation of delay.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; Assistant Commissioner directed to restore land to original grantee's legal heirs.

Sri Lokaiah Naika Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.2012 OF 2015 (SC/ST)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SRI LOKAIAH NAIKA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O SRI.PARAMESHWARA NAIKA, R/AT DEVASYAPADURU VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI VIJAYA KRISHNA BHAT M, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶13

2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANGALORE TALUK, D.K.-575 001

¶14

3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANGALORE TALUK, D.K.-575 001.

¶15

4 . SRI.UMANA MAJOR S/O SRI.MADA, R/AT KANDRODI HOUSE, KARVEKATTE POST,

¶16

-2-

¶17

KAVALAMUDURU VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K.-574211

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT SAVITHRAMMA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3 SRI P P HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.11.2014 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶24

The petitioner, the purchaser of a granted land is before this Court calling in question the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, who have held that the sale transaction dated 02.01.1986, is in contravention of Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (hereinafter referred to as ‘PTCL Act, for short).

¶25

The admitted facts are that the land in question i.e., Sy.Nos.25/2E and 25/1B4, were granted in favour of one Mada on 15.02.1960. The grant was laced with a condition

¶26

-3-

¶27

that the same shall not be alienated for a period of 10 years. The petitioner herein purchased the property from the said Mada under a sale deed dated 02.01.1986. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the grant certificate, it has been provided that if the lands were to be sold in favour of a person belonging to same community as that of the original grantee, then the condition of non-alienation shall not be attracted. It is therefore submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that when it is an admitted fact that the petitioner herein also belongs to the very same community as that of the original grantee, then, there is no violation of any conditions. That apart, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the application was originally filed before the Assistant Commissioner during the year 1996 and therefore there was a delay of 10 years in filing the application. Learned Counsel would places reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi Vs State of Karnataka and Another , reported in 2017 SSC Online SC 1862 and Vivek M. Hinduja and others Vs. M. Ashwatha and others , reported in 2018 (1) Kar. L.R. 176 (SC) , to buttress

¶28

-4-

¶29

his contention that an application was required to be filed within a reasonable time. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that delay of more than 12 years in the cases cited above have not been condoned and on the other hand, it was also held that the application filed before the Assistant Commissioner after a long period of delay should not have been entertained.

¶30

Per contra, learned HCGP, appearing for the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner would submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satyan Vs. Deputy Commissioner and others , reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 710 has considered the earlier decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vivek M. Hinduja and others Vs. M. Ashwatha and others , and has held that a period of eight (8) years delay cannot be said to be such, as to amount to such delay and laches as would make the action void, considering that it is in respect of a beneficial legislation for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes community.

¶31

Learned Counsel Sri. P P Hegde, appearing for the 4^th respondent would submit that the petitioner herein filed an

¶32

-5-

¶33

appeal under Section 5A of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner after the delay of more than 14 years and though an application was made by the petitioner herein seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, there is no specific order passed by the Deputy Commissioner condoning the delay. Learned Counsel would also submit that if delay of more than 14 years on the part of the petitioner could be condoned at the hands of the Deputy Commissioner while filing the appeal under Section 5A of the Act, delay of 10 years on the part of the 4^th respondent in preferring the application is also required to be condoned.

¶34

Heard the learned Counsels and perused the petition papers.

¶35

On the first contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that a concession was given in the grant certificate that if the lands were to be sold in favour of a person who belonged the same community as that of the original grantee, then the non-alienation clause would not take effect, cannot be accepted. It is a well settled position of law that if a condition is stipulated by the granting authority, which is not

¶36

-6-

¶37

provided for in the grand rules, then such conditions will have no precedence over the rules. Moreover, in the present set of facts, what is held against the petitioner is Section 4(2) of the Act and not the violation of the condition of the grant. Section 4(2) of the Act clearly provides that subsequent to the coming into force of the PTCL Act, no lands granted in favour of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, could be transferred without prior permission of the State Government. When admittedly the petitioner has not taken prior permission of the State Government in terms of Section 4(2) of the Act, the sale transaction becomes void in terms of Section 4(2) of the Act.

¶38

On the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner regarding the delay on the part of the 4^th respondent, in approaching the Assistant Commissioner after delay of 10 years after the transaction, as rightly submitted by the learned HCGP, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the question of delay and laches are to be considered depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the case of Satyan Vs. Deputy Commissioner & others (supra) delay of 8

¶39

-7-

¶40

years was held to be not of such a nature which would be considered as an action which is void, considering the beneficial nature of the legislation. Moreover, there is an even larger delay on the part of the petitioner in filing the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. Though the Deputy Commissioner has not passed any specific order condoning the delay, but the very fact that the Deputy Commissioner has proceeded to give his finding on the merits of the matter, it would show that the Deputy Commissioner has ignored the delay of 14 years on the part of the petitioner in filing the appeal. Drawing parity of such condonation of delay of nearly 14 years, the delay on the part of the 4^th respondent in approaching the Assistant Commissioner to an extent of 10 years is definitely required to be condoned.

¶41

On the merits of the matter, as stated above, since there is violation of Section 4(2) of the Act, in not taking prior permission of the State Government, the sale transaction dated 02.01.1986 is hit by the provisions of the PTCL Act. Therefore, no fault can be found in the decisions of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner.

¶42

-8-

¶43

Consequently, the writ petition is devoid of merits and therefore, the same stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶44

At this juncture, learned Counsel for the 4^th respondent submits that though there was no order of stay of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, directing resumption and restitution of the land in favour of the 4^th respondent or the legal representatives of the original grantee, the authorities have not restored the land in favour of the 4^th respondent. Therefore, the 3^rd respondent-Assistant Commissioner is hereby directed to pass orders for restoration of the land in question in favour of the legal heirs of the original grantee, as expeditiously as possible.

¶45

In view of disposal of the main petition, pending Interlocutory Application does not survive for consideration and accordingly the same stands disposed of.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

Sri Lokaiah Naika v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Lokaiah Naika 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

Anuradha College of Physiotherapy Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri Vijayakumara Vs the Chief Secretary

Dr.Ktb School of Nursing Vs the Registrar

L Karthik Vs Karnataka Power Transmission

Sri T Narayana Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Naveen Kumar B Vs the State of Karnataka