Allowed

R M Haleshappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 May 2023WP/25184/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court quashed orders restoring land to an original grantee due to a 15-year delay. The Court held that invoking provisions of the PTCL Act without limitation bars requires acting within a reasonable time, and gross delay invalidates such applications.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order of the Assistant Commissioner confirming restoration and the order of the Deputy Commissioner.

R M Haleshappa Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 25184 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 25184 OF 2017 (SC-ST)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

R M HALESHAPPA S/O CHIKKAPPAIAH @ HALAPPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O RAMPURA VILLAGE, SASIVEHALLI HOBLI, HONNALI TALUK-577217 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT SENIOR CITIZENSHIP BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. P N HARISH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA CHAITHRA A BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, Location: HIGH REVENUE DEPARTMENT, COURT OF M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 KARNATAKA 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, SHIVAMOGGA-577201 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAGAR SUBDIVISION, SAGAR-577401 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT

¶13

¶14

WP No. 25184 of 2017

¶15

NAGARAJA NAIKA S/O JEMLYA NAIKA, MAJOR IN AGE, R/O DODDATHANDA, BEGUR, SHIKARIPURA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577427

¶16

CHANNABASAMMA

¶17

W/O UJJAPPA, MAJOR IN AGE, R/O HULAGINAKATTE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577427 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.VENKAT SATHYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1-R3; SRI.G.M.NATARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R4; V/O DTD: 11.01.2023, NOTICE TO R5 H/S)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS DTD.16.3.2016 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEX-D AND THE ORDER OF THE R-3 DTD.9.4.2009 PASSED IN PTCL NO.16/2005-06 VIDE ANNEX-B.

¶21

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

¶22

3 - WP No. 25184 of 2017

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The captioned writ petition is filed by the purchaser feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner ordering for restoration of petition land and the order passed by the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner.

¶25

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

¶26

.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

¶27

05.04.2021.

¶28

1 (2020) 14 SCC 232

¶29

2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC

¶30

¶31

WP No. 25184 of 2017

¶32

The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

the competent authorities not to annul the alienations

¶36

3 (2018) 12 SCC 527

¶37

4 (2020) 14 SCC 236

¶38

¶39

WP No. 25184 of 2017

¶40

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

¶41

In the present case on hand, the petition land

¶42

was granted to one Banya Naika on 21.06.1963 and there was a restriction for alienation for a period of 15 years.

¶43

¶44

WP No. 25184 of 2017

¶45

The respondent No.5 purchased the land from the original grantee on 14.10.1991, who in-turn sold the same to the petitioner herein on 05.05.1999. The respondent No.4 who claims to be the grandchild of the original grantee initiated action by filing an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The Assistant Commissioner after notifying the parties has allowed the application and ordered for restoration on the ground that alienation contravenes the provisions of Section 4 of the PTCL Act. The said order is confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner.

¶46

In the present case on hand, there is a delay of 15 years in initiating action. The authorities below have

¶47

not examined the delay and laches in moving the application. The judgments cited supra clearly indicate 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

¶48

¶49

WP No. 25184 of 2017

¶50

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.

¶51

In the instant case, diligence is woefully lacking. There is a gross delay of 15 years in initiating action. Therefore, the respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner was not justified in entertaining the application. The respondent No.4 is not entitled for restoration of the petition land as the material on record also indicates that third party rights are created. The petitioner herein is the second purchaser.

¶52

¶53

WP No. 25184 of 2017

¶54

The principles laid down by the Apex Court in

¶55

Chhedi Lal Yadav .vs. Hari Kishore Yadav⁵ [(2018) 12 SCC 527] is also squarely applicable to the present case on hand. 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

¶56

to protect each party from losses he ought not to suffer. The registered sale deeds are public documents and if after verifying the public documents, if citizens enter into 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.

¶57

5 (2018) 12 SCC 527

¶58

¶59

WP No. 25184 of 2017

¶60

For the reasons stated supra, the order passed

¶61

by the respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner and the order passed by the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner are liable to be quashed.

¶62

Hence, I pass the following:

¶63

ORDER

¶64

(i) The writ petition is allowed;

¶65

(ii) The order dated 16.03.2016 passed by the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-D and the order dated 09.04.2009 passed by the respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner vide AnnexureB are hereby set aside;

¶66

(iii) The pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of.

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

¶69

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

R M Haleshappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R M Haleshappa 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

Sri Shivappa S Vs State of Karnataka