Dismissed

Sri Bhadrappa v. Asst Commissioner

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2023WP/10481/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a land restoration application. The court held the land ceased to be 'granted land' after a conversion order and rejected the plea due to a 10-year delay exceeding reasonable time limits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merits; pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.

Sri Bhadrappa Vs Asst Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:19043 WP No. 10481 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 10481 OF 2018 (SC-ST)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI BHADRAPPA S/O LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS,

¶9

NOT CLAIMED SENIOR CITIZEN

¶10

SRI RENUKA PRASAD S/O BHADRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶11

SMT SARASWATHI S/O BHADRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶12

Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

ALL ARE R/AT NO.19-B, HALEGEVADDARAAHALLI VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560068

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. C M JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

ASST COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU-560001

¶18

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:19043 WP No. 10481 of 2018

¶19

SRI RAJENDRA PRASAD M S/O MADHUSUDHAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶20

SRI ANKINEEDU S/O RAJENDRA PRASAD M, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT NO.361, 5^TH MAIN, 10^TH CROSS, RMV EXTENSION, 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560054

¶21

SMT. K SHILPA REDDY W/O D AMARANATHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/A NO.275, 13^TH CROSS, HIG, RMV 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560094

¶22

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DISTRICT, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU-560009

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI.M.S.RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 (NOC OBTAINED); SRI.VENKAT SATHYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1 & 5; V/O DTD: 4/4/2022, PETITION AS AGAINST R2 & 3 STANDS ABATED)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN SCST(A)26/2015/2016 DATED 12.12.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND THE ORDER OF THE ASST. COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUBDIVISION, BENGALURU IN KA.SC.ST(S) 38/2013/14 DATED 28.03.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-B BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITIONS WITH COST.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC:19043 WP No. 10481 of 2018

¶28

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

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The captioned writ petition is filed by the legal heirs of the original grantee questioning the order passed by the respondent No.1/Assistant Commissioner rejecting the petition seeking restoration which is confirmed by the respondent No.5/Deputy Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner declined to entertain the petition seeking restoration on the ground that the petition land was sold to one Puttaiah, brother of petitioner No.1 for upset price and therefore, the petition land does not fall within the definition of 'granted land'. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of the petition, the present petitioners preferred an appeal before the respondent No.5/Deputy Commissioner. The respondent No.5/Deputy Commissioner having verified the records found that the petitioners do not belong to Kaniyan community which has its origin at Kollegala Taluk, Chamarajanagar District,

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:19043 WP No. 10481 of 2018

¶33

while petitioners' family are found to be residents of Bengaluru. These concurrent orders are under challenge.

¶34

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. 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 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.

¶35

The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama

¶36

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

¶37

1 (2020) 14 SCC 232

¶38

2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC

¶39

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:19043 WP No. 10481 of 2018

¶40

seeking annulment of sale as void under Section 4 of the PTCL Act. The Apex Court by reiterating the principles laid

¶41

down in Chhedi Lal Yadav .vs. Hari Kishore Yadav³ 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

¶42

the Statute must be invoked within a reasonable time. The Apex Court was of the view that the authorities have 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

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

3 (2018) 12 SCC 527

¶46

4 (2020) 14 SCC 236

¶47

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:19043 WP No. 10481 of 2018

¶48

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.

¶49

In the instant case, the brother of petitioner No.1 namely Puttaiah purchased the petition land for upset price on 10.03.1980. The original grantee entered into a development agreement in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3 on 30.04.1996. The original grantee submitted an application seeking conversion of the land for residential purpose and the competent authority passed an order on 09.10.2000 permitting the petitioners to use the petition land for residential purpose. The original grantee during

¶50

NC: 2023:KHC:19043 WP No. 10481 of 2018

¶51

¶52

his lifetime through GPA holder sold the petition land in favour of respondent No.4 under registered sale deed dated 01.02.2003. After the demise of original grantee, the petitioners herein sought for restoration by filing a petition in 2013-14. The present controversy between the parties needs to be examined in two folds. Firstly, on account of conversion order passed by the competent authority on 09.10.2000, the question that needs consideration at the hands of this Court is, as to whether the legal heirs of original grantee are entitled to seek restoration of the land.

¶53

The controversy is resolved by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Munnaiah & Others vs. The Deputy Commissioner & Others⁵ , while answering a reference in that regard. The Full Bench while answering a reference has held that once land is converted, the same ceases to be a granted land under the provisions of PTCL Act. The Full Bench further held that in case of diverted

¶54

5 W.P.No.60483 of 2016 Dtd: 05.07.2021

¶55

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:19043 WP No. 10481 of 2018

¶56

land, the requirement of obtaining permission under Section 4(2) of PTCL Act does not arise as permission has to be obtained only in respect of granted land and therefore, the land, on conversion, no longer remains granted land.

¶57

In the instant case, the conversion order is dated 09.10.2000, while sale deed is executed on 01.02.2003 which is subsequent to conversion order. On perusal of the conversion order which is placed on record by respondent No.4, it is forthcoming that it is the original grantee who submitted an application seeking conversion. Therefore, the principles laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Munnaiah (supra) is squarely applicable to the present case on hand. If petition land was converted as on the date of alienation, on account of conversion, the land, even otherwise, loses its character of granted land and therefore, the grantee's family cannot invoke the jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner and seek restoration of petition land.

¶58

NC: 2023:KHC:19043 WP No. 10481 of 2018

¶59

¶60

The petition is also liable to be dismissed on the

¶61

ground of delay. In the instant case, sale deed was executed on 01.02.2003 and proceedings are initiated in 2013. Therefore, there is a delay of 10 years. In the light of principles discussed supra and also principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the restoration proceedings initiated by the petitioners who claim to be the legal heirs of original grantee cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner and seek restoration under the provisions of PTCL Act as there is gross delay in not initiating proceedings within a reasonable period. Both the authorities have declined to entertain the restoration petition on the ground that the petitioners have failed to substantiate that he belong to depressed class and therefore, the land has to be presumed as a granted land. Therefore, respondent No.1/Assistant Commissioner and respondent No.5/Deputy Commissioner have declined to entertain the restoration petition.

¶62

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:19043 WP No. 10481 of 2018

¶63

Be that as it may, the core question that

¶64

requires consideration is, as to whether the present petitioners who claim to be the legal heirs of original grantee, even otherwise, had a locus to seek restoration as there is delay of 10 years. The law relating to reasonable period is given a quietus by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments. The delay of 10 years does not fall within the definition of 'reasonable period' as interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, the orders under challenge even otherwise, would not warrant interference at the hands of this Court.

¶65

For the foregoing reasons, I pass the following:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly, dismissed.

¶68

The pending interlocutory application, if any, does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.

¶69

Sd/JUDGE

¶70

CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Sri Bhadrappa v. Asst Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Bhadrappa v. Asst 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

Sri Thimmappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri J N Pushparaju Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. M Anjinappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. K. Parvathamma Vs the State of Karnataka

T. Thammaiah Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Shanthamma Vs the State of Karnataka