The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition filed by a daughter seeking restoration of scheduled caste land. The court held that a 42-year delay in applying for restoration rendered the petition maintainable and liable to rejection due to laches and crystallized rights of subsequent purchasers.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2023:KHC:20997 WP No. 10173 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 10173 OF 2023 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SUNDARAMMA D/O KADARAIAHA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT BHAGATH SINGH ROAD JAYANAGRA HASSAN-573201.
…PETITIONER
(BY MS. PUSHPALATHA Y, ADV. FOR SRI KASHINATH J D, ADV.)
AND:
Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2023:KHC:20997 WP No. 10173 of 2023
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VENKAT SATHYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1 TO 3)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE OFFICE OF THE R-1 AND 2 IN RESPECT OF ORDER VIDE BEARING NO. P.T.C.L. 18/12-13 DATED 13/08/2014 AS PER ANNX-B AND ALSO IN RESPECT OF ORDER BEARING NO. P.T.C.L./04/201415 DATED28/04/2022 AS PER ANNX-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the daughter of original grantee seeking restoration of the petition land. The second respondent/Assistant Commissioner taking cognizance of the fact that legal heir of original grantee has already suffered an order, wherein the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 16.06.1993 rejected the petition seeking restoration filed by the petitioner’s sister
declined to entertain the second application. The first respondent/Deputy Commissioner has also proceeded to dismiss the appeal by holding that second application is not maintainable and even otherwise the Deputy Commissioner was of the view that legal heir of original grantee is not entitled to seek restoration as there is delay
of 42 years. The first respondent/Deputy Commissioner applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi .vs. State of Karnataka and another1 and Vivek M. Hinduja .vs. M. Aswatha2 has dismissed the appeal. These concurrent orders are under challenge.
it would be useful to refer to the judgments rendered by the Apex Court on this issue in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi
.vs. State of Karnataka and another3 and Vivek M. Hinduja .vs. M. Aswatha4 . It would be also useful to
1 (2020) 14 SCC 232
2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC
3 (2020) 14 SCC 232
4 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC
refer to the judgment rendered by a Co-Ordinate Bench of 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.
3. The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama
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 Yadav5 and also in the case of Ningappa .vs. Deputy Commissioner and others6 has held that where Statute did not prescribe the period of limitation, the provisions of the Statute must be invoked within a reasonable time. The Apex Court was of the view that the authorities have
5 (2018) 12 SCC 527
6 (2020) 14 SCC 236
to give due regard to the period of time within which 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.
judgment has held that where statute does not provide for limitation, the authorities and State must act consciously and if the process of invoking the provisions of statute is 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.
NC: 2023:KHC:20997 WP No. 10173 of 2023
Section 4 of the PTCL Act is not at all maintainable since the same is not filed within a reasonable period. Both the Authorities have taken cognizance of gross delay and have rightly rejected the petition.
7 (2018) 12 SCC 527
genuine, the subsequent alienations cannot be set at naught by showing leniency to aggrieved party who has slept over his rights, if rights are crystallized on account of inaction on the part of the original grantee. The said application has to be rejected on this count also.
Lal Yadav (supra) is also squarely applicable to the case on hand.
Authorities in declining to entertain the petition does not
suffer from any infirmities. I do not find any illegality in the orders. On the contrary, first respondent/Deputy Commissioner placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court has rightly dismissed the appeal and confirming the order passed by the second respondent/Assistant Commissioner.
ORDER
Writ petition is devoid of merits and
accordingly stands dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging orders rejecting restoration of land after a 42-year delay lacks merit.
Whether inordinate and unjustified delay bars the invocation of powers under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi .vs. State of Karnataka and anotherRelied on¶29
(2020) 14 SCC 232 · Who else cites this
Vivek M. Hinduja .vs. M. AswathaRelied on¶29
(2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC
Chhedi Lal Yadav .vs. Hari Kishore YadavRelied on¶44
(2003) 1 SCC 678 · Who else cites this
Ningappa .vs. Deputy Commissioner and othersRelied on¶44
(2020) 14 SCC 236 · Who else cites this
Smt. Sundaramma
Deputy Commissioner Hassan
Assistant Commissioner Sakaleshpura
Tahsildar Beluru
Sri Annappa Gowda
Sir Eregowda
Sachin Shankar Magadum
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
