Dismissed

Shri. M Nataraja v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC6 Nov 2023WP/19013/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge dismissed a writ petition challenging an order dismissing an appeal under the PTCL Act for violation of alienation conditions. The court held that the petition involved inordinate delay of 19 months and was barred by laches as proceedings were final when the Act was amended.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

Shri. M Nataraja Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:39512 WP No. 19013 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 19013 OF 2023 (SCST)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI. M NATARAJA AGED 43 YEARS, S/O LATE MUNINARAYANAPPA R/AT NO.71, KHAJISONNENAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560067

¶9

Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

SHRI M HARISH AGED 34 YEARS, S/O LATE MUNINARAYANAPPA R/AT NO.71, KHAJISONNENAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560067

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. PALLAVA R., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVANA K G ROAD BENGALURU-560001

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:39512 WP No. 19013 of 2023

¶17

The ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION, PODIUM BLOCK, VISVESHWARIAH TOWER DR. AMBEDKAR VEDHI BENGALURU-560001

¶18

SHRI S K JAYARAM AGED 64 YEARS, S/O LATE B N KRISHNA REDDY R/AT 158, SRINIDHI AURA K G A ROAD, AMARJYOTHI LAYOUT, DOMLUR, BENGALURU-560071

¶19

SMT. NANJAMMA MAJOR D/O KENCHA MARIYAPPA R/AT KANNAMANGALA BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK – 560 067.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1 & R2)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 11.01.2022 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU - R1 HEREIN IN K.SC.ST.186/2011-12 GIVEN HEREIN AT ANNEXURE-A

¶23

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

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 11.01.2022, passed by the respondent No.1 vide Annexure-A, have filed the present writ petition.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC:39512 WP No. 19013 of 2023

¶28

Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:

¶29

Petitioners' grandfather, namely, T. Poojappa who belongs to Schedule Caste was granted 2 acres 10 guntas land in Sy.No.100 situated at Khajisonnenahalli Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the land in question), free of cost by the State Government and saguvali chit was also issued. One Smt. Nanjamma, D/o Kenchamariyappa i.e., respondent No.4 purchased the land in question from the grandmother and the father of petitioners under registered sale deed dated 23.11.1960. It is contended that the said sale transaction is in violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act, 1978 and same is null and void. The respondent No.3 purchased the land in question from Smt. Nanjamma – respondent No.4 under registered sale deed dated 22.09.1988, which is in violation of the PTCL Act, 1978. The petitioners being the grandchildren of original grantee Late T. Poojappa, made an application before the respondent No.2 in the year 2009 for resumption of land

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:39512 WP No. 19013 of 2023

¶32

in question. The respondent No.2 rejected the said application holding that the grant was made at an upset price to the original grantee and hence the protection under the Act could not be extended to the petitioners. The petitioners aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent No.2 dated 22.08.2011, preferred an appeal before the respondent No.1 under Section 5A of the PTCL Act, 1978. It is further stated that the respondent No.1 vide order dated 11.01.2022, dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay in filing the application under Section 5 of

¶33

the PTCL Act, 1978. The Karnataka Schedule Castes & Schedule Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, was amended by the State of Karnataka by making amendment to Section 5 of the said Act to declare that there shall not be any limitation of time to invoke the provisions of the said Act and the same shall be applicable to all pending proceedings before the competent authorities and on all courts of law adjudicating the cases under the provisions of the PTCL Act. Hence the

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:39512 WP No. 19013 of 2023

¶36

petitioners aggrieved by the order passed by respondent

¶37

No.1 vide Annexure-A, have filed this writ petition.

¶38

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the State Legislatures keeping in mind the decision rendered in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232,

¶40

has amended the PTCL Act making it clear that there is no time limit prescribed to approach the authorities concerned, seeking resumption of granted lands and further submits that amendment is applicable to all cases pending before the competent authorities. He submits that the benefit of the amendment is applicable to the petitioners' case. He submits that in view of the amendment to the PTCL Act, there is no time limit prescribed for filing application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. Hence, the respondent No.1 without considering

¶41

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC:39512 WP No. 19013 of 2023

¶43

the said aspect, proceeded to pass the impugned order. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶44

Per contra, learned Additional Government

¶45

Advocate submits that as on the date of amendment of the PTCL Act, the proceedings were not pending before the respondent No.1. The order passed by the respondent No.1 as on the date of amendment has attained finality. Hence, he submits that the amended provision is not applicable to the present case in hand. He further submits that the respondent No.1 i.e., Deputy Commissioner, passed an order on 11.01.2022, and the writ petition was filed on 19.08.2023. Thus there is a delay of 19 months in filing the writ petition. Thus there is an inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. He further submits that the petitioners have not explained the delay in filing the writ petition at a belated stage. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2023:KHC:39512 WP No. 19013 of 2023

¶48

Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶49

Perused the records and considered the

¶50

submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶51

The land in question was granted to the grandfather of the petitioners, namely, T. Poojappa who belong to scheduled caste, free of cost by the State Government and saguvali chit was issued on 07.11.1957. The grandmother and father of the petitioners sold the said land in favour of respondent No.4 under registered sale deed dated 23.11.1960, and possession was delivered to the respondent No.4. The respondent No.4 in turn sold

¶52

the said land in favour of respondent No.3 under the registered sale deed dated 22.09.1988. The petitioners being the grandchildren of the original grantee made an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act in the year 2009, before the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 after holding an enquiry, has observed that land was granted in favour of Smt. Kenchamma and not in favour of

¶53

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:39512 WP No. 19013 of 2023

¶54

T.Poojappa or Muninarayanappa, the father of the petitioners and the land was granted at an upset price of Rs.50/- per acre and it was observed that once land is granted at an upset price, no non-alienation condition can be imposed and the alienation of granted land cannot be held as null and void and respondent No.2 has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of PUTTAVEERAIAH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS., reported in (1996) 3 KANT.LJ 34 . By applying the principle laid down in the said decision, it is held that the registered sale deed dated 23.11.1960, cannot be held as null and void and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner and dropped the proceedings. The petitioners aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent No.2, preferred an appeal under Section 5A of the PTCL Act before the respondent No.1, Deputy Commissioner. The respondent No.1 vide order dated 11.01.2022, dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the respondent No.2. The petitioners accepted the order passed by the respondent No.1 and kept quite for more than 19 months.

¶55

¶56

NC: 2023:KHC:39512 WP No. 19013 of 2023

¶57

Meanwhile, the State Government amended Section 5 of the PTCL Act vide Act No.30 of 2023. From the perusal of the amendment to Section 5 of the PTCL Act, it is clear that there is no limitation prescribed for filing application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act and it is applicable to all pending proceedings. In the instant case, as on the date of amendment to the PTCL Act, 1978, no proceedings were pending in respect of land in question and the proceedings have attained finality. Further, the Deputy Commissioner has passed an order on 11.01.2022, and writ petition came to be filed on 19.08.2023. The petitioners have not explained the delay in filing the writ petition at a belated stage. Exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an instance of exercise of jurisdiction in equity and therefore, before considering the writ petition on merits, the doctrine of delay and laches would have to be adverted to while exercising powers under equity jurisdiction. The said view is supported by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SMT. N. JAYAMMA & ORS., VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. , in

¶58

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:39512 WP No. 19013 of 2023

¶59

W.P.Nos.17906-17907/2016, disposed of on 05.02.2018.

¶60

The said view is reiterated by the Co-ordinate Bench of

¶61

this Court in HASNATH B. & ORS. VS. THE STATE OF

¶62

KARNATAKA & ORS. , in W.P.No.41508-41512/2017, disposed of on 01.02.2018.

¶63

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CHENNAI METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD VS. T.T. MURALI BABU reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108, at paragraph No.17 has held as under:

¶64

"In the case at hand, though there has been four years’ delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent-employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that

¶65

11 -

¶66

NC: 2023:KHC:39512 WP No. 19013 of 2023

¶67

remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others’ ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons - who compete with ‘Kumbhakarna’ or for that matter ‘Rip Van Winkle’. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold."

¶68

(Emphasis supplied)

¶69

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RAJASTAN

¶70

& ORS., VS. D. R. LAKSHMI & ORS. , reported in (1996) 6 SCC 445, cautioned the High Court not to entertain the writ petitions when there is inordinate delay, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶71

of India. Thus there is negligence on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court at a belated stage

¶72

12 -

¶73

NC: 2023:KHC:39512 WP No. 19013 of 2023

¶74

and they have given up their claim. They filed a writ petition only when the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) (Amendment) Act, 2023, came into force. As on the date of amendment, no proceedings were pending. The proceeding has attained finality. Thus the petitioner has not explained the reason in filing the writ petition at a belated stage. Hence, on the ground of delay and laches alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶75

ORDER

¶76

The writ petition is dismissed.

¶77

SD/JUDGE

¶78

Shri. M Nataraja v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. M Nataraja 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

Kamalesh Reddy Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri Lingappa Devadiga Vs Devadiga Seva Vedike

Smt Balamma Vs Sri Siddamallaiah

Sri. Muninarayanappa Vs Sundaramma @ Akkayamma

Shivalingaiah Vs Chikkathayamma

Margadarshan Education Trust Vs the Secretary