Dismissed

Mr. N.Narasimha Murthy v. Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC29 May 2023WP/24062/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the grandson of an original grantee challenging the rejection of his application for land restoration. The court held that a 42-year delay and subsequent bona fide transactions rendered the application non-maintainable under Section 5 of the PTCL Act.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it was devoid of merits due to gross delay and laches.

Mr. N.Narasimha Murthy Vs Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 24062 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 24062 OF 2021 (SCST)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. N. NARASIMHA MURTHY, S/O. LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDENT OF DURGIDEVI STREET, VIJAYAPURA TOWN, DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562 110, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SHRIVATSA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GUBBI SWAMY S., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 562 114.

¶13

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA - 561 203.

¶14

SHRI. MUNIKRISHNAPPA, S/O. LATE APPAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

¶15

¶16

WP No. 24062 of 2021

¶17

SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA, W/O. MUNIKRIGHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF BETTAHALLI VILLAGE, SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. VENKAT SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. B.G. NANJUNDARADHYA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 11.03.2020 IN APPEAL NO. (SC ST) 76/17 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The captioned writ petition is filed by the grandson of the original grantee feeling aggrieved by the order dated 11.03.2020 passed by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure - A, wherein respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner has allowed the application filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 and set aside the order

¶24

¶25

WP No. 24062 of 2021

¶26

dated 09.06.2017 passed by respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner.

¶27

Before I advert to the facts of the present case,

¶28

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.

¶29

The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama

¶30

Lakshmi, while interpreting Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of

¶31

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

¶32

1 (2020) 14 SCC 232

¶33

2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC

¶34

¶35

WP No. 24062 of 2021

¶36

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 action has to be taken by the interested person. The Apex Court was of the view that it is well within the discretion of

¶37

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

¶38

3 (2018) 12 SCC 527

¶39

4 (2020) 14 SCC 236

¶40

¶41

WP No. 24062 of 2021

¶42

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.

¶43

In the instance case, the grandson of the original grantee initiated the proceeding by filing the petition under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, 1978. On examining the records, this Court would find that the petition land was granted to one Dabba Chinnappa on 30.11.1959 and Saguvali Chitt was issued on 02.06.1961.

¶44

The original grantee, alienated the petition land on 21.03.1967. Thereafter, there are series of transactions. The last sale was in favour of respondents No.3 and 4 in

¶45

6 - WP No. 24062 of 2021

¶46

Respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner allowed the petition and ordered for restoration. Respondent No.1Deputy Commissioner, however, reversed the order by following the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra. The said order is under challenge by the grandson of the original grantee.

¶47

In the present case on hand, there is a delay of 42 years in initiating action. The Deputy Commisisoner rightly examined the delay and laches in moving the application. 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 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

¶48

¶49

WP No. 24062 of 2021

¶50

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.

¶51

In the present case on hand, I would find that the action is grossly delayed and taken beyond reasonable time. This Court would also find that the land was alienated several times during this period, obviously with an impression that vendor had saleable title. 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.

¶52

¶53

WP No. 24062 of 2021

¶54

The principles laid down by the Apex Court in Chhedi Lal Yadav .vs. Hari Kishore Yadav⁵ [(2018)

¶55

12 SCC 527] is also squarely applicable to the present case on hand as there are series of transactions which date back to 1967. After the demise of original grantee, the grandson of original grantee sold the petition land in 1967. The purchaser has further meddled with the property and finally, respondents 3 and 4 have purchased the subject-matter of the petition land in the year 2004. The Apex Court was of the view that if there is inordinate, unexplained and unjustified delay on the part of the applicant in seeking restoration of the land, such inaction would create a right in favour of other party. Therefore, the Apex Court was of the view that time must be reckoned reasonably, not only in order to preserve the rights and advantages which party possesses but equally to protect each party from losses he ought not to suffer. The registered sale deeds are public documents and after verifying the public documents, if citizens enter into

¶56

5 (2018) 12 SCC 527

¶57

¶58

WP No. 24062 of 2021

¶59

further transaction believing such public documents to be genuine, the subsequent alienations cannot be set at naught by showing leniency to aggrieved party who has slept over his rights, if rights are crystallized on account of inaction on the part of the original grantee. The said application has to be rejected on this count also.

¶60

In view of the discussion made supra, the order passed by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A is strictly in consonance with the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi. The Commissioner was not justified in invoking the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act, 1978, ignoring the inordinate delay of 42 years. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶61