Allowed

Sri J N Pushparaju v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Jun 2023WP/10127/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed orders confirming land restoration under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The court held the petition was not maintainable due to a 42-year delay and the alienation likely pre-dated the Act's commencement.

What did the court decide?

Orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner confirming restoration of land were set aside.

Sri J N Pushparaju Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 10127 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 10127 OF 2021 (SC-ST)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI J N PUSHPARAJU S/O LATE NARASIMHULU AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS

¶8

SMT P MYTHILI RAJ D/O SRI J N PUSHPARAJ AGED MAJOR

¶9

SMT P GAYITHRI RAJ D/O SRI J N PUSHPARAJ AGED MAJOR

¶10

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI P CHETHNAKUMARI D/O SRI J N PUSHPARAJ AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶12

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KONAGHATTA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK-562 163 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. JEEVAN KUMAR B S, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATKA REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶17

¶18

WP No. 10127 of 2021

¶19

CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA

¶20

BENGALURU - 560 001

¶21

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT DISTRICT OFFICE COMPLEX 1^ST FLOOR, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU-562 110

¶22

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUBAGERE-DODDABALLAPURA ROAD DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA-561203 KARNATAKA

¶23

SRI ANANDA M S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT KONAGHATTA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK-562 163 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

¶24

SRI SONNAPPA S/O ANJINAPPA AGED MAJOR R/AT BYRADEVANAHALLI VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110

¶25

SRI PILLAPPA S/O GULLABYRAPPA AGED MAJOR DASARAHALLI VILLAGE

¶26

¶27

WP No. 10127 of 2021

¶28

KRISHNARAJAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU-560057

¶29

SRI SRIRAMAIAH @ SRIRAMAPPA S/O ANNAIAPPA AGED MAJOR

¶30

SMT MUNITHAYAMMA W/O SRIRAMAIAH @ SRIRAMAPPA AGED MAJOR

¶31

SRI MANJUNATHA S/O SRI SRIRAMAIAH @ SRIRAMAPPA AGED MAJOR

¶32

SRI KRISHNAMURTHY S/O SRIRAMAIAH @ SRIRAMAPPA AGED MAJOR

¶33

RESPONDENT NOS.7 TO 10 ARE RESIDING AT KONAGHATTA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK-562 163, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI.VENKAT SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R.1 TO R.3; SRI.P.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R.4; NOTICE TO R.5 TO R.10 IS D/W V/O/D 21.06.2021)

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 DTD 06.10.2020 VIDE ANNX-G AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-3 DTD 15.09.2018 FILED BY

¶37

¶38

WP No. 10127 of 2021

¶39

THE R-4 ANANDA M UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE KARNATAKA SCHEDULE CASTE SCHEDULED TRIBE (PREVENTION OF TRANSFER OF CERTAIN LANDS) ACT, 1978 VIDE ANNX-E AND ETC.

¶40

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner No.1 - purchaser feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner ordering for restoration of petition land and the order passed by the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner.

¶43

Before I advert to the facts of the present case, it would be useful to refer to the judgments rendered by the Apex Court on this issue in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi .vs.

¶44

State of Karnataka and another¹ and Vivek M. Hinduja .vs. M. Aswatha² . It would be also useful to refer to the judgment rendered by a Co-Ordinate Bench of

¶45

1 (2020) 14 SCC 232

¶46

2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC

¶47

¶48

WP No. 10127 of 2021

¶49

this Court in W.P.No.50446 of 2012, which was confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.16/2021 disposed of on 05.04.2021.

¶50

The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama

¶51

Lakshmi, while interpreting Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short "PTCL Act") had an occasion to examine the point of limitation wherein interested person can file appropriate application seeking annulment of sale as void under Section 4 of the PTCL Act. The Apex Court by reiterating the principles laid down in Chhedi Lal Yadav .vs. Hari Kishore Yadav³

¶52

and also in the case of Ningappa .vs. Deputy Commissioner and others⁴ has held that where Statute did not prescribe the period of limitation, the provisions of

¶53

the Statute must be invoked within a reasonable time.

¶54

The Apex Court was of the view that the authorities have

¶55

to give due regard to the period of time within which

¶56

3 (2018) 12 SCC 527

¶57

4 (2020) 14 SCC 236

¶58

¶59

WP No. 10127 of 2021

¶60

action has to be taken by the interested person. The Apex Court was of the view that it is well within the discretion of the competent authorities not to annul the alienations where there is inordinate delay in initiating action by the interested persons under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.50446/2012 disposed of on 24.1.2020 declined to entertain the application filed by the original grantee where there was a delay of ten years. This Court was of the view that the application itself was not maintainable since the same was not filed within a reasonable time. While recording the finding, this Court relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ningappa .vs. Deputy Commissioner and others, where the Apex Court had declined to entertain the application which was submitted after nine years seeking restoration of land under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. The judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.50446/2012 is affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.16/2021.

¶61

¶62

WP No. 10127 of 2021

¶63

This Court by order dated 21.06.2021 has passed the following order;

¶64

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for contesting caveat respondent No.4/grantee. Perused the material on record.

¶65

It is forthcoming that the grant was made on 20.11.1945. The original grantee who is none other than the great grand father of respondent No.4 sold the petition land in contravention of grant condition on 03.05.1972. The purchaser in-turn sold the same in the year 1992 who in-turn sold on 16.08.2001. The material on record indicates that the third purchaser in-turn sold the petition land under registered sale deed dated 22.08.2012 in favour of petitioner No.1.

¶66

If these significant details are taken into consideration, then the orders passed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 needs to be examined in the light of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi .vs. State of Karnataka and another⁵ and Vivek M. Hinduja .vs. M. Aswatha⁶ . This Court has to also examine the principles laid down

¶67

5 (2020) 14 SCC 232

¶68

6 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC

¶69

¶70

WP No. 10127 of 2021

¶71

by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chhedi Lal Yadav .vs. Hari Kishore Yadav⁷ , where the property has changed hands under series of sale deeds.

¶72

In that view of the matter, the execution and operation of the orders passed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 as per Annexures-G and E are stayed until further orders.

¶73

Learned HCGP is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶74

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent Nos.5 to 10 are formal parties and they are vendors of the petitioners herein and no relief is sought against them. He submits that a note has been put in this regard. Said note is accepted and notice to respondent Nos.5 to 10 is dispensed with at the risk of the petitioners.

¶75

Statement of objections be filed by respondent No.4 within a period of eight weeks."

¶76

On examining the records, this Court would find

¶77

that the petition land was granted in the year 1945 with a non-alienation clause for a period of 10 years. Therefore, the petition seeking restoration under Section 5 of the

¶78

7 (2018) 12 SCC 527

¶79

¶80

WP No. 10127 of 2021

¶81

PTCL Act is also not maintainable in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of JAGADISH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA⁸ . If alienation

¶82

is made after expiry of conditions imposed in the grant and before commencement of PTCL Act, the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of PTCL Act are not applicable. Even on this count,

¶83

the petition for restoration is liable to be rejected.

¶84

- The petition for restoration is also not maintainable on the ground of delay. In the instant case, the diligence is found to be woefully lacking. There is a delay of 42 years. The Authorities below have not examined the delay and laches in moving the application. The judgments cited supra clearly indicates that on the ground of gross delay and laches, the application made by the grantee or by the legal heirs under Section 5(2) of the PTCL Act requires to be rejected. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited judgment has held that where statute does not provide for limitation, the authorities and State must act consciously and if the

¶85

process of invoking the provisions of statute is

¶86

8 2019 SCC Online SC 1901

¶87

* Corrected vide Court order dated: 4.7.2023 .

¶88

10 -

¶89

WP No. 10127 of 2021

¶90

delayed and is initiated after long lapse of time, the delay by itself would act as an impediment. Thus, without exception and coming across various rules of law, the Apex Court has categorically stated the law in respect of exercise of power/jurisdiction under statute where no limitation is stipulated. The law on the point of delay and laches to invoke the provisions of PTCL Act is well settled by catena of judgments.

¶91

This Court would find that respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner and respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner have entertained the petition seeking restoration, which is filed after inordinate delay of 42 years. Therefore, the order passed by respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner and respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner are found to be contrary to the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited supra.

¶92

For the reasons stated supra, the order passed

¶93

by the respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner and the

¶94

11 -

¶95

WP No. 10127 of 2021

¶96

order passed by the respondent No.2/Deputy

¶97

Commissioner are liable to be quashed.

¶98

Hence, I pass the following:

¶99

ORDER

¶100

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶101

(ii) The order passed by respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-G and the order passed by the respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure -E are hereby set aside.

¶102

Sd/JUDGE

¶103

NBM

¶104

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Sri J N Pushparaju v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri J N Pushparaju v. 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 Rathnamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Shivarudrappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Mr. a.C.Basavaraja Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Thimmappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. M Anjinappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. P. Balaramaiah Vs the Deputy Commissioner