Allowed

Smt Nagamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC26 Jul 2023WP/13157/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition filing by legal heirs of land purchasers. The court quashed orders directing resumption of land under the PTCL Act, holding that a 15-year delay in seeking restoration violated principles of reasonable time and laches established by the Apex Court.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; orders passed by Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner directing resumption of land are quashed; pending applications disposed of.

Smt Nagamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:26081 WP No. 13157 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 13157 OF 2013 (SC-ST)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. NAGAMMA

¶9

W/O LATE GADLEPPA

¶10

SINCE DEAD BY HER LEGAL HEIRS

¶11

1A. BASAPPA

¶12

S/O LATE GADLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶13

1B. LAKSHMANAPPA

¶14

S/O LATE GADLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶15

1C. RAMAPPA

¶16

S/O LATE GADLAPPA,

¶17

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶18

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A

¶19

1D. GANESHAPPA

¶20

S/O LATE GADLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶21

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶22

PETITIONERS ARE AGRICULTURIST

¶23

AND RESIDENTS OF HOLEBELAGALU VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK - 577201. SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶24

…PETITIONERS

¶25

(BY SMT.H.T.ANNAPURNA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC:26081 WP No. 13157 of 2013

¶28

AND:

¶29

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA - 577 101.

¶30

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA SUB-DIVISION SHIVAMOGGA-577 101.

¶31

SRI HONNURAPPA SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS

¶32

3A. SMT. NEELAMMA W/O LATE HONNURAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS SINCE DEAD RESPONDENTS 3(B) TO 3(D) ARE THE LRs OF RESPONDENT 3(A)

¶33

3B. SRI ADIVEPPA S/O LATE HONNURAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶34

3C. SRI DEVENDRAPPA S/O LATE HONNURAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶35

3D. RAJAPPA S/O LATE HONNURAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶36

RESPONDENTS 3(A) TO 3(D) ARE R/O HOLEBELAGALU VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK-577201. SHIMOGA DISTRICT

¶37

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:26081 WP No. 13157 of 2013

¶38

…RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI.VENKATA SATHYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1 & 2; R3(A) SERVED; SRI. M V MAHESWARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3 (B-D))

¶40

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 7.2.2013 BEARING NO.SC/ST-7/87-88 PRODUCED AT ANNX-C TO THE WP PASSED BY R1 AND THE ORDER DATED 7.2.1987 PASSED BY R2 IN CASE NO.PTCL.CR 245/79-80 PRODUCED AT ANNX-A TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶41

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

¶42

IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

The captioned petition is filed by the legal heirs of purchasers assailing the concurrent orders of the authorities who have ordered for resumption of the land ignoring inordinate delay.

¶45

2. Before I advert to the facts of the present case,

¶46

it would be useful to refer to the judgments rendered by the Apex Court on this issue in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi

¶47

.vs. State of Karnataka and another¹ and Vivek M.

¶48

1 (2020) 14 SCC 232

¶49

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:26081 WP No. 13157 of 2013

¶50

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.

¶51

The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC

¶55

3 (2018) 12 SCC 527

¶56

4 (2020) 14 SCC 236

¶57

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:26081 WP No. 13157 of 2013

¶58

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

¶59

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

¶60

¶61

NC: 2023:KHC:26081 WP No. 13157 of 2013

¶62

of this Court in W.P.No.50446/2012 is affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.16/2021.

¶63

In the instant case, the land in question was granted to respondent No.3-Honnuraappa vide order dated 28.03.1961. After the demise of original grantee, the widow sold the land in question in favour of the petitioner under registered sale deed dated 01.02.1967. The application is filed on 24.05.1979 seeking resumption of the land. In the instant case, there is delay of 15 years in seeking restoration.

¶64

In the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi and Vivek M.Hinduja (supra) , the Deputy Commissioner erred in exercising jurisdiction ignoring inordinate delay of 15 years. 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

¶65

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:26081 WP No. 13157 of 2013

¶66

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 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

¶67

the point of delay and laches to invoke the provisions of PTCL Act is well settled by catena of judgments. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner runs contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment cited supra. Therefore, I am of the view that the order for resumption passed by the authorities is patently erroneous and in contravention of law laid down in that regard.

¶68

In the result, I pass the following:

¶69

¶70

NC: 2023:KHC:26081 WP No. 13157 of 2013

¶71

ORDER

¶72

(i) The writ petition is allowed;

¶73

(ii) The order passed by the respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-A and the order passed by the respondent No.1Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-C are hereby quashed;

¶74

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

¶75

Sd/JUDGE

¶76

CA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 0

Smt Nagamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Nagamma 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

S Venkataswamy Vs Deputy Commissioner

Anatha Sevashrama Trust (R) Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Jayalakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Gopal Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. D Disha Vs Sri. B C Hemanth

Smt Mary Lily Vs State of Karnataka