Dismissed

Sri Shivappa S v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 May 2023WP/14584/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The petitioner sought to quash orders declining restoration of land granted under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. The court held that due to an inordinate delay of 22 years in initiating proceedings, the application was

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed by the original grantee's sons seeking resumption and restoration of the land was dismissed as it fell within a reasonable period.

Sri Shivappa S Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 14584 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 14584 OF 2022 (SCST)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI SHIVAPPA S, S/O SRINIVASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT SANTHEKALLAHALLI VILLAGE, KAIVARA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT - 563 128.

¶8

SRI SRINIVASAPPA, S/O LATE POOJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,

¶9

RESIDING AT SANTHEKALLAHALLI VILLAGE, KAIVARA HOBLI,

¶10

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT - 563 128.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. RAJENDRA K R., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING,

¶16

¶17

WP No. 14584 of 2022

¶18

BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶19

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT, CHICKBALLAPUR - 562 101.

¶20

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHICKBALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION, CHICKBALLPUR - 562 101.

¶21

SRI V KRISHNAPPA, S/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA, MAJOR, RESIDING AT SANTHEKALLAHALLI VILLAGE, KAIVARA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT - 563 128.

¶22

SRI V NARAYANASWAMY, S/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA, MAJOR, RESIDING AT SANTHEKALLAHALLI VILLAGE, KAIVARA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT - 563 128.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. VENKAT SATHYANARAYAN., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. M. V. NAVEEN REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5)

¶25

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED.4.7.2022 IN CASE NO.RA/SC.ST.42/2018-19 PASSED

¶26

¶27

WP No. 14584 of 2022

¶28

BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHICKBALLAPURA A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-K AND THAT OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHICKBALLAPUR SUB DIVISION, CHICKBALLAPUR ORDER DATED.24.9.2018 IN CASE NO.PTCL(CHIM) 14/2013-14 A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H BE RESTORED AND ETC.,

¶29

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for respondents No.1 to 3.

¶32

The captioned writ petition is filed by the son of the original grantee feeling aggrieved by the order dated 04.07.2022 in case No.RA/SC.ST.42/2018-19 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-K and the order dated 24.09.2018 in case No.PTCL(Chim.)14/2013/14 passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-H.

¶33

Before I advert to the facts of the present case,

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

WP No. 14584 of 2022

¶37

.vs. State of Karnataka and another¹ and Vivek M. Hinduja .vs. M. Aswatha² . It would be also useful to

¶38

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.

¶39

The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama

¶40

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

¶41

and also in the case of Ningappa .vs. Deputy Commissioner and others⁴ has held that where Statute

¶42

1 (2020) 14 SCC 232

¶43

2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC

¶44

3 (2018) 12 SCC 527

¶45

4 (2020) 14 SCC 236

¶46

¶47

WP No. 14584 of 2022

¶48

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 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

¶49

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

¶50

¶51

WP No. 14584 of 2022

¶52

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.

¶53

In the present case on hand, the legal heirs of

¶54

the original grantee have initiated proceedings seeking restoration of land on the premise that alienations made by the father are contrary to the provisions of the Karnataka Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. It is found from the records that the petition land was granted to the petitioner's father in 1978. The original grantee has alienated the land in question to respondent No.4 under a registered sale deed dated 16.12.1991, while the proceedings are initiated by the legal heirs of the original grantee after lapse of 22 years. Therefore, what is evident is that there is total inaction on part of the grantee and his legal heirs in not seeking restoration of land within reasonable time. In the light of dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra,

¶55

¶56

WP No. 14584 of 2022

¶57

respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner erred in ordering resumption of petitioner's land in favour of grantee's family. The Deputy Commissioner has rightly reversed the order. The observation and findings recorded by the Deputy Commissioner are strictly in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

¶58

of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi cited supra. Since there is an inordinate delay of 22 years, I am of the view that the application submitted by petitioners seeking resumption and restoration of granted land on the ground that transfer is in violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act is not at all maintainable. If the application seeking restoration is not filed within a reasonable time in the light of principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav cited supra, the rights of the transferee have to crystallise by passage of time. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner.

¶59

¶60

WP No. 14584 of 2022

¶61

In the present case on hand, there is a delay of 22 years in initiating action. The order of restoration

¶62

passed by respondent No.3 is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Respondent No.2 has rightly rejected petition seeking restoration on the ground of delay. The judgments cited supra clearly indicates that

¶63

on the ground of gross delay and laches, the application made by the grantee or by the legal heirs under Section 5 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 the point of delay and laches to invoke the provisions of PTCL Act is well settled by catena of judgments.

¶64

¶65

WP No. 14584 of 2022

¶66

In the present case on hand, I would find that the

¶67

action is grossly delayed and taken beyond reasonable time. In that view of the matter, the application filed by petitioner seeking resumption and restoration of granted land on the ground that the transfer is in violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act is not at all maintainable since the same is not filed within a reasonable period. The order under challenge does not suffer from any legality.

¶68

In view of discussion made supra, I proceed to

¶69

pass the following:

¶70

ORDER

¶71

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

¶72

Sd/JUDGE

¶73

HDK CT:STK

Sri Shivappa S v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shivappa S 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

Sri Omanna S/O Maruti Gondakar Vs the Managing Director

Smt Gangutai D/O Goudappa Naganuri Vs the Managing Director

Sri. Murulidhar S/O. Maruti Patil Vs Sri. Sachin S/O. Mohan Kallimani

Smt. Kadiramma Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Nanki Bai Vs the Deputy Commissioner

R M Haleshappa Vs State of Karnataka