Dismissed

Smt. Jayalaksmi @ Jayalakshmamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC13 Jun 2023WP/17349/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition filed by the legal heirs of a former SC-ST land grantee seeking restoration of land transferred in contravention of the PTCL Act. The court held that a delay of 25 years bars the claim under settled principles. It quashed the Assistant Commissioner's order, upholding the Deputy Commissioner's rejection of the relief. Prayed under Articles 226 and 2

What did the court decide?

The writ petition held to be devoid of merits and stands dismissed; the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is affirmed.

Smt. Jayalaksmi @ Jayalakshmamma Vs the Deputy… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:20269 WP No. 17349 of 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 17349 OF 2022 (SCST)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. JAYALAKSHMI @ JAYALAKSHMAMMA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, W/O. SRI. RAVIKUMAR, D/O. SRI. RAMACHALUVAIAH,

¶9

SMT. GANGAMMA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, W/O. NAGARAJU, D/O. SRI. RAMACHALUVAIAH,

¶10

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

BOTH RESIDING AT: BAGINAGERE VILLAGE, JANATA COLONY, TIPPASANDRA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA - 562 109.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR H S., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:20269 WP No. 17349 of 2022

¶18

TUMAKURU - 572 101.

¶19

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TUMAKURU SUB-DIVISION, S. P. ROAD, ASHOKA NAGAR, B. H. ROAD, TUMAKURU - 572 103.

¶20

SMT. SUSHEELAMMA, AGED MAJOR, W/O. LATE DODDAIAH,

¶21

SRI. HARISH, AGED MAJOR, S/O. LATE DODDAIAH,

¶22

SRI. UMESH, AGED MAJOR, S/O. LATE DODDAIAH,

¶23

RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 5 R/AT: KOGHATTA VILLAGE, YELIYURU POST, HUTRIDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 130.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. SRINIVASA C., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S. K. VENKATA REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR C/R3-5 SRI. VENKATANARAYANA., HCGP FOR R1 & R2)

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 12.08.2022 PASSED BY THE R1 DEPUTY

¶27

¶28

NC: 2023:KHC:20269 WP No. 17349 of 2022

¶29

COMMISSIONER IN CASE NO.P.T.C.L-10/2014.15 AT ANNEXURE-F TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,

¶30

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

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The captioned writ petition is filed by the legal heirs of the original grantee feeling aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-F, wherein respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner has allowed the application filed by respondents No.3 to 5 and set aside the order dated 01.12.2014 passed by respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner.

¶33

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

¶34

.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

¶35

1 (2020) 14 SCC 232

¶36

2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC

¶37

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:20269 WP No. 17349 of 2022

¶38

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 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 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

¶41

3 (2018) 12 SCC 527

¶42

4 (2020) 14 SCC 236

¶43

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:20269 WP No. 17349 of 2022

¶44

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

¶45

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.

¶46

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:20269 WP No. 17349 of 2022

¶47

In the instance case, this Court would find that the father of the petitioner's herein entered into a sale transaction by executing an agreement on 14.10.1987. The father of respondents No.3 to 5, based on an agreement to sell instituted a suit seeking relief of specific performance contract. The said suit was decreed and the same was confirmed by this Court in RSA.No.670/2005. The contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that since the sale deed was executed in 2012, the petition is filed seeking restoration, and therefore, the same is filed within time. The said argument cannot be acceded too. Admittedly, the agreement to sale was executed on 14.10.1987, therefore, in terms of definition of transfer as per Section 3(e) of PTCL Act, even an agreement to sell with or without possession amounts to transfer. Therefore, there was a contravention of the provisions of the PTCL Act immediately after the petitioner's father entered into a sale transaction way back in 1987. Therefore, petitioners had a valid cause of action in 1987, and nothing prevented petitioners from seeking

¶48

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:20269 WP No. 17349 of 2022

¶49

restoration of land. They kept quiet till they suffered a decree at the hands of this Court in RSA.No.670/2005. There is a delay of 25 years. Therefore, diligence is woefully lacking in the present case on hand. In the light of principles discussed supra, the Deputy Commissioner was justified in allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of restoration passed by respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner.

¶50

The respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner has not only reversed the order of restoration on the ground of delay but has also come to the conclusion that the land was not granted to one Nanjaiah under the depressed class category. The Deputy Commissioner was of the view that the petition land was admittedly Inam land and therefore, the provisions of PTCL Act are not applicable.

¶51

In the light of principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi , I am of the view that there is no need to

¶52

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:20269 WP No. 17349 of 2022

¶53

examine whether the petition land is a granted land. Since there is a delay of 25 years, even if petition land is presumed to be granted land, the petitioners are not entitled to seek restoration as they have approached the respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner after a lapse of 25 years. Therefore, the order passed by the respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner is strictly in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra. The order of restoration passed by respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner runs contrary to the principles cited supra, and therefore, respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner has rightly set aside the order of restoration.

¶54

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

¶55

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:20269 WP No. 17349 of 2022

¶56

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.

¶57

In the present case on hand, I would find that the 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 Deputy Commissioner has taken cognizance of gross delay and has rightly rejected the petition.

¶58