Allowed

Smt. Rangamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC22 Oct 2021WP/29073/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that voiding the Deputy Commissioner's order allowing the restoration of land to the original grantees was necessary to interregna principles. The court remitted the matter for consideration of delay and laches only, noting the petitioner had not raised the limitation plea in the writ petition's memorandum.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order allowing restoration of land is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Deputy Commissioner to consider the question of delay and laches after affording an opportunity to the pa

Smt. Rangamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.29073 OF 2009 (SC/ST)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. RANGAMMA W/O KENCHAPPA

¶8

AGED 60 YEARS, R/O HULLUKATTE VILLAGE, HATTIMAGE POST, MADADAKERE HOBLI, HOSADURGA TQ, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. B M SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT CHITRADURGA

¶13

2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION CHITRADURGA

¶14

3 . SRI NARAYANAPPA S/O KRISHNAPPA MAJOR, R/O HULLUKATTE VILLAGE, HATTIMAGE POST, MADADAKERE HOBLI, HOSADURGA TQ CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶15

¶16

4 . SRI HALAPPA S/O DYAMAPPA

¶17

SINCE DEAD, REP BY HIS LRS,

¶18

4(a) SRI. T.H. SHANKARA MURTHY S/O LATE HALAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶19

4(b) SRI. BASAVARAJAPPA S/O LATE HALAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶20

RESPONDENTS No.4(a) AND 4(b) ARE R/AT TALIGEKALLU VILLAGE HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶21

5 . SMT. TULASAMMA W/O DURGAPPA MAJOR, R/O HULLUKATTE VILLAGE HATTIMAGE POST, MADADAKERE HOBLI HOSADURGA TQ, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶22

….RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. M. SANDESH KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-1 AND R-2 SRI. C. GOPALAKRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R-5 R-4(a), R-4(b) ARE SERVED VIDE ORDER DATED 24.09.2021.

¶24

NOTICE TO R-3 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1, IN CASE NO.SCPTL (A) 38/03-04 DATED.15.7.09, VIDE ANNEXURE-B TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 15.7.2009 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-B has filed this writ petition.

¶30

Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are as under:

¶31

The land bearing Sy.No.12 New No.46 measuring 5 acres of Hullukatte village, Madadakere Hobli, Hosadurga Taluk was granted in favour of Rangappa dated 7.3.1955 on a upset price of Rs.30/-. 3 acres of land was sold in favour of Durgappa s/o. Rangappa under a registered sale deed dated 5.1.1968. The said land was in turn sold Halappa under a registered sale deed dated 14.2.1969. Again the said land was sold in favour of one Giriyappa who in turn sold in favour of the petitioner under registered sale deed

¶32

¶33

dated 6.3.1978. Since then the petitioner is in

¶34

possession and enjoyment of the above said land.

¶35

Respondent No.2, soon after, initiated

¶36

proceedings under Section 5 of the (Prohibition of Transfer of certain lands) Act 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the PTCL Act) on the report submitted by the Tahsildar dated 14.9.2001. Respondent No.2 issued show cause notice to the parties and after holding an enquiry, recorded a finding that the land in question was granted under ‘Grow More Food Scheme’ for an upset price of Rs.30/- with a condition that the land shall not be alienated for a period of 10 years in favour of Ranganna mother Smt.Tulasawwa. The said land in question was sold after a non-alienation period of 10 years. Respondent No.2 vide order dated 3.6.2003 dismissed the application of the grantee.

¶37

Respondent No.5 being aggrieved by the order

¶38

passed by respondent No.2, preferred an appeal under

¶39

¶40

Section 5A of the Act before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 vide order dated 15.7.2009 allowed the appeal and consequently allowed the application filed by respondent No.5 and passed an order for restoration of the land in favour of the grantee. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.1 has filed this writ petition.

¶41

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶42

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that

¶43

the grant was made in the year 1956 and the grantee

¶44

has sold the same in favour of Narayanappa on 5.1.1968 who in turn sold the land in favour of Siddappa and Siddappa sold the land in favour of Giriyappa. Giriyappa, in turn, has sold the said land in favour of the petitioner under registered sale deed dated 6.3.1978. He further submits that respondent No.5 has filed an application under Section 5 of the

¶45

¶46

Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of certain lands) Act 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the PTCL Act) in the year 1997 i.e. after a lapse of more than 23 years of the coming into force of the PTCL Act. He places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in 2017 SCC ONLINE 1862 which is further reiterated in the case of MR.VIVEK H HINDUJA AND OTHERS v. MR. ASWATHA AND OTHERS reported in 2019 Kar.L.J. 819 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the statute provides for a period of limitation and the provisions of the statute must be invoked within the reasonable time.

¶47

He further submits that respondent No.5 has not invoked the provisions of the PTCL Act within the reasonable time. Hence, on the ground of delay and

¶48

¶49

laches, respondent No.1 ought to have dismissed the appeal but on the contrary respondent No.1 has allowed the appeal and passed the order for restoration of land in favour of respondent No.5. He submits that the order passed by respondent No.1 is arbitrary and capricious. Hence on these grounds he, prays to allow the writ petition.

¶50

Learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits

¶51

that the petitioner has not raised the issue in regard to the limitation before the Deputy Commissioner. He submits that an opportunity should be given to the grantee to explain the delay wherein the purchaser has not raised the said point before the authorities. He further submits that in similar circumstances, the co-ordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.2154/2015 disposed of on 30.7.2021, remitted the matter to the Assistant Commissioner only to consider the question regarding delay and laches on the part of the grantee

¶52

¶53

in filing the application before the Assistant

¶54

Commissioner. Hence, he submits that the matter may also be remitted to the Deputy Commissioner for explaining the delay and laches on the part of respondent No.5 in filing the application before the Assistant Commissioner as held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. P. Kamala/ vs./ The State of Karnataka and Others reported in

¶55

2019(4) KCCR 3945(DB) .

¶56

Learned HCGP supports the impugned order.

¶57

Perused the records and considered the

¶58

submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶59

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties this Court finds that in case of Smt P Kamala supra, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held that on the principles of audi alteram partem , an opportunity should be given to the grantee to explain

¶60

¶61

the delay where it is found that the purchaser had never raised an objection or plea regarding delay and laches before the Assistant Commissioner.

¶62

In the present case, from the perusal of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner as well the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner has not raised the ground that the application was filed beyond reasonable time. The petitioner has raised the issue regarding delay and laches before this Court during the course of arguments. In fact, the petitioner has not urged the grounds in the memorandum of writ petition. Therefore, considering the law laid down by this Court in Smt P Kamala supra , the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶63

¶64

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following :

¶65

ORDER

¶66

i) The writ petition is allowed;

¶67

ii) The impugned order is hereby set aside;

¶68

iii) Matter stands remitted to the Deputy

¶69

Commissioner to consider the question regarding delay and laches on the part of respondent No.5 in filing the application before the Assistant Commissioner only. Opportunity should be given not only to respondent No.5 herein but also to the petitioner herein in the matter of consideration of their

¶70

plea and objection raised regarding delay and laches;

¶71

iv) Parties are directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner on 29.11.2021 without waiting for further notice. The Deputy Commissioner shall afford an opportunity to the parties and to make an endeavour to dispose of the appeal on the limitation question as expeditiously as possible within a period

¶72

¶73

of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶74

It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated on the merits in issue. All contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶75

SD/JUDGE

¶76

Smt. Rangamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rangamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

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

V Krishnappa S/O V.B. Venkataramaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri G Krishnappa Vs Smt U R Chandrakala

Master Kushal K . P.R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.K.P.Srinivas Gowda Vs the Medical Council of India

Smt Lakkamma W/O Karihanumaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri P Gopal Reddy Vs Smt Muniyamma